Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Joseph[_10_] Joseph[_10_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Mackie 32-8-2 mixer

I have a chance to buy one for $300, but I've read that the pres and the eq are pretty bad.Is this true? What would be a good alternative?
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Rick Ruskin Rick Ruskin is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 358
Default Mackie 32-8-2 mixer

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 18:53:00 -0700 (PDT), Joseph
wrote:

I have a chance to buy one for $300, but I've read that the pres and the eq are pretty bad.Is this true? What would be a good alternative?


For $300? Nothing.
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Mackie 32-8-2 mixer

On 10/2/2018 9:53 PM, Joseph wrote:
I have a chance to buy one for $300, but I've read that the pres and the eq are pretty bad.Is this true? What would be a good alternative?


What do you want for $300? A good alternative would be an API 3208. I
think it's about $45,000. Just be sure that you get the power supply and
multi-conductor power cable with it.

Lots of good music that you've never heard has been recorded on Mackie
8-bus consoles. You have to watch the internal levels because they
didn't really have the gain structure to support full levels all the way
through. And it's really a multitrack recording console, something that
you don't find on the shelf these days, at least not for a home studio
price.

The preamp circuit in the 8-bus is almost identical to their Onyx, which
they used in their premium line of mixers for many years. It's pretty
good for a no-character preamp. You have to pay extra for classic
distortion.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Joseph[_10_] Joseph[_10_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Mackie 32-8-2 mixer

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 7:07:45 PM UTC-7, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 10/2/2018 9:53 PM, Joseph wrote:
I have a chance to buy one for $300, but I've read that the pres and the eq are pretty bad.Is this true? What would be a good alternative?


What do you want for $300? A good alternative would be an API 3208. I
think it's about $45,000. Just be sure that you get the power supply and
multi-conductor power cable with it.

Lots of good music that you've never heard has been recorded on Mackie
8-bus consoles. You have to watch the internal levels because they
didn't really have the gain structure to support full levels all the way
through. And it's really a multitrack recording console, something that
you don't find on the shelf these days, at least not for a home studio
price.

The preamp circuit in the 8-bus is almost identical to their Onyx, which
they used in their premium line of mixers for many years. It's pretty
good for a no-character preamp. You have to pay extra for classic
distortion.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com


I'm not trying to get something necessarily for $300. That's just what the Mackie is going for. I'm willing to spend about 3x that. Still not high budget, I know. And I don't need 32 channels....12 would be enough.
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Joseph[_10_] Joseph[_10_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Mackie 32-8-2 mixer

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 7:07:45 PM UTC-7, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 10/2/2018 9:53 PM, Joseph wrote:
I have a chance to buy one for $300, but I've read that the pres and the eq are pretty bad.Is this true? What would be a good alternative?


What do you want for $300? A good alternative would be an API 3208. I
think it's about $45,000. Just be sure that you get the power supply and
multi-conductor power cable with it.

Lots of good music that you've never heard has been recorded on Mackie
8-bus consoles. You have to watch the internal levels because they
didn't really have the gain structure to support full levels all the way
through. And it's really a multitrack recording console, something that
you don't find on the shelf these days, at least not for a home studio
price.

The preamp circuit in the 8-bus is almost identical to their Onyx, which
they used in their premium line of mixers for many years. It's pretty
good for a no-character preamp. You have to pay extra for classic
distortion.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com


Speaking of the Onyx, for a little more (around $450) I could pick up the 1640i Firewire 16 Channel Mackie Onyx.A 16 channel console seems about right, 32 seems like overkill for my purposes.You recommend the Onyx?


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Mackie 32-8-2 mixer

On 10/2/2018 10:22 PM, Joseph wrote:
I'm not trying to get something necessarily for $300. That's just what the Mackie is going for. I'm willing to spend about 3x that. Still not high budget, I know. And I don't need 32 channels....12 would be enough.


How much of a mixer do you need? How are you planning to use it? As I
said, the Mackie 8-bus is really designed for multitrack studio use, and
that's a hard thing to find these days since the majority of people
recording are doing everything in a computer that traditionally was done
in a mixer and aren't using a mixer for anything but mic preamps and a
monitor controller.

You might look around for one of the Allen & Heath Mix Wizard models or
a small Crest if you only need mic preamps and maybe want to sum a few
mics on the way to the computer. I don't know how much better (if at
all) it would be than the Mackie, but you might feel better not getting
a Mackie.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Mackie 32-8-2 mixer

On 10/2/2018 10:48 PM, Joseph wrote:
for a little more (around $450) I could pick up the 1640i Firewire 16 Channel Mackie Onyx.A 16 channel console seems about right, 32 seems like overkill for my purposes.You recommend the Onyx?


I have an Onyx 1640i along side my Soundcraft 600 and I actually use the
Mackie more than the Soundcraft these days, but that's mostly because of
the Soundcraft's age and the noisy pots and switches that go along with
the age. But I use a Mackie hard disk recorder more than I use a DAW for
recording, and I appreciate the Soundcraft's metering and routing that
are lacking on the Mackie.

When using the Firewire I/O on the Mackie (the converters are a good
match for the rest of the mixer) and a DAW program, it can almost work
like an in-line console for tracking, but still, I'd rather use the
Soundcraft.

My Soundcraft and the Mackie 8-bus are sort of contemporaries. I chose
the Soundcraft because at the time I had a recording truck and other
engineers were using it, not just me. I figured that buying a Soundcraft
was kind of like buying a Toyota - nobody would complain about it
because of what they thought of Mackie. It served me well, but now it's
more than 30 years old and, sadly, hasn't reached "desirable vintage"
status - so it's worth about as much today as a Mackie 8-bus.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Mackie 32-8-2 mixer

Joseph wrote:
I have a chance to buy one for $300, but I've read that the pres and the eq are pretty bad.Is this true? What would be a good alternative?


You can mix on it. It's workable. You don't need the preamps anyway, since
in the modern age you can just track through an external preamp and lay one
track per mike down since there is no worry about running out of tracks to
tape.

The EQ.... you could do worse... you could do a lot better but you can
certainly do worse. But again, you can use the DAW EQ for fine work and the
console EQ for rough tone-shaping and be pretty happy with it.

Mute all unused channels, keep the meters out of the yellow zone... you want
peaks at -20dB on the meters. The mix bus has zero headroom, but on the other
hand it's quiet enough that you can just keep the levels down and not worry
about it.

It's no API by any means, but you're not going to find an API for $300.
I have heard some very fine work mixed on a Mackie 8-buss. It's more effort
to work on than a higher end console but that's how life is.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Mackie 32-8-2 mixer

Joseph wrote:

I'm not trying to get something necessarily for $300. That's just what the Mackie is going for. I'm willing to spend about 3x that. Still not high budget, I know. And I don't need 32 channels....12 would be enough.


Do you need all those busses to tape?
If you're just mixing down and you only need 12 channels, you might consider
the Allen and Heath Mix Wizard or the 16-channel Midas Venice. They are
designed more for PA work than recording work but if you're not married to
having sends and returns to tape they are easier to mix on.

The Venice was the first low-cost console with proper EQ.

Watch out with the used Midas Venice... if the EQ controls wear out they
don't just become intermittent but start whistling. So don't get one that
came out of heavy rental service. Hmm, I guess that's good advice for any
console, really.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
david gourley[_2_] david gourley[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 233
Default Mackie 32-8-2 mixer

(Scott Dorsey) said...news
Joseph wrote:

I'm not trying to get something necessarily for $300. That's just what

the Mackie is going for. I'm willing to spend about 3x that. Still not high
budget, I know. And I don't need 32 channels....12 would be enough.

Do you need all those busses to tape?
If you're just mixing down and you only need 12 channels, you might

consider
the Allen and Heath Mix Wizard or the 16-channel Midas Venice. They are
designed more for PA work than recording work but if you're not married

to
having sends and returns to tape they are easier to mix on.

The Venice was the first low-cost console with proper EQ.

Watch out with the used Midas Venice... if the EQ controls wear out they
don't just become intermittent but start whistling. So don't get one

that
came out of heavy rental service. Hmm, I guess that's good advice for

any
console, really.
--scott


Glad to hear that about the Midas. I just got a killer deal on a mint-
condition Venice F32 that was only used about 6 times before the sound
company moved to digital consoles. Most seem to be holding on to them as
backup systems now.

david

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Mackie 32-8-2 mixer

david gourley wrote:

Glad to hear that about the Midas. I just got a killer deal on a mint-
condition Venice F32 that was only used about 6 times before the sound
company moved to digital consoles. Most seem to be holding on to them as
backup systems now.


The controls don't feel like a high end console, but it sounds amazingly
good for what it is, and the EQ does what I expect it to do. I don't spend
a lot of time worrying about muting everything although you do need to be
more careful about gain structure than with a high end console.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_] Les Cargill[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Mackie 32-8-2 mixer

Joseph wrote:
I have a chance to buy one for $300, but I've read that the pres and
the eq are pretty bad.Is this true? What would be a good
alternative?



They're pretty good mixers. Just never light the yellow lights on the
meters.

--
Les Cargill
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Joseph[_10_] Joseph[_10_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Mackie 32-8-2 mixer

I hooked it up and I've been running it interfaced to my daw through my delta 1010. It does what I need it to do and sounds pretty good. Thinking about pulling out my Tascam 38-8 now that I have a mixer again. Anyone know anyone who still works on those (the Tascam)? If I remember right, it needs a drive belt replaced.
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Mackie 32-8-2 mixer

On 8/10/2018 4:56 PM, Joseph wrote:
I hooked it up and I've been running it interfaced to my daw through my delta 1010. It does what I need it to do and sounds pretty good. Thinking about pulling out my Tascam 38-8 now that I have a mixer again. Anyone know anyone who still works on those (the Tascam)? If I remember right, it needs a drive belt replaced.


Why on earth would you want to resurrect one of those ? Just run
whatever DAW tracks thru Magneto or something similar if you want a
sound-effect.

geoff

(Yes, I once had a 388 ! And a 24 chan Mackie 8-Bus)
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Mackie 32-8-2 mixer

On 10/8/2018 6:11 AM, geoff wrote:
Why on earth would you want to resurrect one of those ? Just run
whatever DAW tracks thru Magneto or something similar if you want a
sound-effect.


Work flow. You don't have to fuss with a computer while tracking, and
limiting the number of tracks means you have to make decisions when
recording.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Mackie 32-8-2 mixer

Joseph wrote:
I hooked it up and I've been running it interfaced to my daw through my del=
ta 1010. It does what I need it to do and sounds pretty good. Thinking abou=
t pulling out my Tascam 38-8 now that I have a mixer again. Anyone know any=
one who still works on those (the Tascam)? If I remember right, it needs a =
drive belt replaced.


It needs drive belts, a new pinch roller, a rough alignment and it _likely_
needs some of those conductive rivets resoldered after so long. Plenty of
techs will work on them, even Tascam service.

Get a new alignment tape too, since your alignment tape has likely gone out
of spec after so long.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Joseph[_10_] Joseph[_10_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Mackie 32-8-2 mixer

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 3:11:52 AM UTC-7, geoff wrote:
On 8/10/2018 4:56 PM, Joseph wrote:
I hooked it up and I've been running it interfaced to my daw through my delta 1010. It does what I need it to do and sounds pretty good. Thinking about pulling out my Tascam 38-8 now that I have a mixer again. Anyone know anyone who still works on those (the Tascam)? If I remember right, it needs a drive belt replaced.


Why on earth would you want to resurrect one of those ? Just run
whatever DAW tracks thru Magneto or something similar if you want a
sound-effect.

geoff

(Yes, I once had a 388 ! And a 24 chan Mackie 8-Bus)


My mistake.It's not a 388, just a 38. And why resurrect it? To access the tracks I recorded on it so I can transfer them to digital. Lots of lost music there I want to retrieve.
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Mackie 32-8-2 mixer

On 9/10/2018 1:26 AM, Joseph wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 3:11:52 AM UTC-7, geoff wrote:
On 8/10/2018 4:56 PM, Joseph wrote:
I hooked it up and I've been running it interfaced to my daw through my delta 1010. It does what I need it to do and sounds pretty good. Thinking about pulling out my Tascam 38-8 now that I have a mixer again. Anyone know anyone who still works on those (the Tascam)? If I remember right, it needs a drive belt replaced.


Why on earth would you want to resurrect one of those ? Just run
whatever DAW tracks thru Magneto or something similar if you want a
sound-effect.

geoff

(Yes, I once had a 388 ! And a 24 chan Mackie 8-Bus)


My mistake.It's not a 388, just a 38. And why resurrect it? To access the tracks I recorded on it so I can transfer them to digital. Lots of lost music there I want to retrieve.


Good reason !

geoff
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS Mackie Audio mixer 24/8 PA0RMD Marketplace 0 September 19th 04 09:11 AM
Mackie D8B Mixer mint!! VGardner Marketplace 0 September 3rd 04 06:16 AM
FS: Mackie 1202 mixer Cheapseller Pro Audio 0 August 16th 04 07:09 PM
FS: Mackie 8*24 mixer Eric Frampton Pro Audio 4 June 23rd 04 05:28 AM
FS: Mackie 1604VLZ Mixer $450 Dave Marketplace 0 February 28th 04 02:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:07 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"