Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mackie Onyx pre Vs. 8-Bus pre
Hi all,
I'm considering to buy a 32-channel analog mixing console for my project studio. I use especially synthesizers and samplers. Budget: 1500-2000 euro. At the moment, the alteratives a - Mackie Onyx 32.4 (NEW) - Mackie 32.8 (USED) Regarding Onyx and 32.8 preamplifiers, which are the best? Is there anyone that have heard and tried both? Please help me! Thanks in advance. Luke |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mackie Onyx pre Vs. 8-Bus pre
On Mar 22, 2:54 pm, wrote:
I'm considering to buy a 32-channel analog mixing console for my project studio. I use especially synthesizers and samplers. Regarding Onyx and 32.8 preamplifiers, which are the best? The Onyx is better. But if you use synthesizers and samplers, how many mics will you need? That's really the only place where preamps make a difference. Also, do you really need a 32-channel console? It's kind of a waste if it's just going to be a place where you can have all your synths pugged in all the time. You might be able to use a smaller console and a patchbay. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mackie Onyx pre Vs. 8-Bus pre
wrote:
Hi all, I'm considering to buy a 32-channel analog mixing console for my project studio. I use especially synthesizers and samplers. Budget: 1500-2000 euro. At the moment, the alteratives a - Mackie Onyx 32.4 (NEW) - Mackie 32.8 (USED) Regarding Onyx and 32.8 preamplifiers, which are the best? The preamps in the Onyx are much better. But why do you care? If you are using synthesizers and samplers you can take unbalanced inputs into the inserts, and bypass the preamps altogether. Is there anyone that have heard and tried both? Yes, and I find the EQ on the Onyx also much more usable than on the older Mackies. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mackie Onyx pre Vs. 8-Bus pre
On 23 Mar, 01:51, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
wrote: Hi all, I'm considering to buy a 32-channel analog mixing console for my project studio. I use especially synthesizers and samplers. Budget: 1500-2000 euro. At the moment, the alteratives a - Mackie Onyx 32.4 (NEW) - Mackie 32.8 (USED) Regarding Onyx and 32.8 preamplifiers, which are the best? The preamps in the Onyx are much better. But why do you care? If you are using synthesizers and samplers you can take unbalanced inputs into the inserts, and bypass the preamps altogether. Is there anyone that have heard and tried both? Yes, and I find the EQ on the Onyx also much more usable than on the older Mackies. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Thanks all for your preciuos help and suggestions... I want good pre to normalize with care the signals generated from my instruments. I realize sample libraries and I need quality in signals preamplification... Furthemore, to create the right sound for my sampler I need all my instruments connected at the same time... Another question. What do you think about Soundcraft Ghost compared to Mackie Onyx? Thanks a lot. Luke |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mackie Onyx pre Vs. 8-Bus pre
On 23 Mar, 11:19, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom
wrote: On 23 Mar 2007 02:01:03 -0700, wrote: I want good pre to normalize with care the signals generated from my instruments. I realize sample libraries and I need quality in signals preamplification... Think carefully what you're saying here. Your samples are already recorded, doubtless through excellent microphones and preamps. That part of the job's done. If your music is all synths and samplers, you're lucky. Probably all you need is a simple inexpensive line mixer. Yes, I know! But often, line levels from synth and expander are very low and a good pre of a good mixing console, in my opinion, is much better if compared to performance of low cost and inexpensive line mixer. Furthemore, a line mixer often doesn't give a versatile signal routing and good quality eq stage, such as a mixing console equipped with semi- parametric/parametric eq, multiple output bus, subgroup insert, etc, etc. This is my opinion. I'm not a newbie. Thanks. Luke |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mackie Onyx pre Vs. 8-Bus pre
On Mar 23, 7:21 am, wrote:
But often, line levels from synth and expander are very low and a good pre of a good mixing console There's something wrong here. Sometimes it's in settings in the synths, sometimes (mostly) it's about not understanding level setting and gain structure. Occasionally it's a mismatch between equipment designs, but a microphone preamplifier (which is the ONLY kind of preamplifier you'll find on a console) is not the way to solve that problem unless you choose to use a direct box (DI) between the synth output and the mic preamp input. There are usually better solutions for the studio. What you need to do is find out what the nominal output levels of your synths are and buy a console that has sufficient gain on the line inputs that will match them properly. This is my opinion. I'm not a newbie. Nobody is accusing you of being a newbie, but there are some things about system engineering that you don't seem to understand, but rather prefer to apply your opinion to solving your problem. That isn't always the best way. For example, why do you need to have all of your synths connected at the same time? Are you using MIDI to controlling them and you have several of them playing at the same time so that you can record the mix? That's legitimate, but it's about the only justification. Equalization of synths is OK for small tweaks, but most people prefer to edit a patch (or choose another patch) if the sound needs to be changed substantially. If using EQ with your synths is your personal working style, that's OK, but it's something that most people will question - hence the questions. Sometimes you need to fully justify your prejudices, opinions, and working methods in order for people to understand why you're asking the question you're asking. This IS rocket science. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mackie Onyx pre Vs. 8-Bus pre
On Mar 23, 5:01 am, wrote:
Another question. What do you think about Soundcraft Ghost compared to Mackie Onyx? Are we going to start playing the "is this one better than that one?" game? If you gave this some thought, you'd realize that the two consoles are functionally quite different, and in fact are quite different in price. There is no Onyx, at least not presently, that's the functional equivalent of the Ghost. The Ghost is a multitrack recording console with eight subgroups and monitor returns on every channel. The Onxy has, at most, four output subgroups and no monitor returns unless you use channel line inputs. You can use a Ghost for just about everything you can use an Onyx for, but not the other way around. And if all you need is an Onyx's I/O capabilities, you're wasting a lot of money on the Ghost. As far as sound goes, they're probably similar but different. But if you need a Ghost because of its connections, you've eliminated the Onyx. Have you looked at the modern Trident consoles, the Oram Trident 8T or the Toft ATB? Those are, I believe, going to be this decade's "Ghost." |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mackie Onyx pre Vs. 8-Bus pre
On 23 Mar, 12:41, "Mike Rivers" wrote:
On Mar 23, 7:21 am, wrote: Occasionally it's a mismatch between equipment designs, but a microphone preamplifier (which is the ONLY kind of preamplifier you'll find on a console) is not the way to solve that problem unless you choose to use a direct box (DI) between the synth output and the mic preamp input. There are usually better solutions for the studio. Yes, but I don't like DI very much and quality DI are very expensive... Nobody is accusing you of being a newbie, but there are some things about system engineering that you don't seem to understand, but rather prefer to apply your opinion to solving your problem. That isn't always the best way. .... sorry! For example, why do you need to have all of your synths connected at the same time? Are you using MIDI to controlling them and you have several of them playing at the same time so that you can record the mix? Yes. Equalization of synths is OK for small tweaks, but most people prefer to edit a patch (or choose another patch) if the sound needs to be changed substantially. I know but in some situations, especially when many sounds are layered, I prefer to use eq channel stage. In my opinion It's faster and more versatile. Furthemore, often I use old analog synth that haven't a "canonic" eq ... |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mackie Onyx pre Vs. 8-Bus pre
Are we going to start playing the "is this one better than that one?"
game? If you gave this some thought, you'd realize that the two consoles are functionally quite different, and in fact are quite different in price. There is no Onyx, at least not presently, that's the functional equivalent of the Ghost. The Ghost is a multitrack recording console with eight subgroups and monitor returns on every channel. The Onxy has, at most, four output subgroups and no monitor returns unless you use channel line inputs. Yes I know... I wanted only an opinion because I found a Ghost LE 24 in mint condtions at very very good price... You can use a Ghost for just about everything you can use an Onyx for, but not the other way around. And if all you need is an Onyx's I/O capabilities, you're wasting a lot of money on the Ghost. As far as sound goes, they're probably similar but different. But if you need a Ghost because of its connections, you've eliminated the Onyx. Have you looked at the modern Trident consoles, the Oram Trident 8T or the Toft ATB? Those are, I believe, going to be this decade's "Ghost." I'm looking for best solution for my needs and I'm considering several kind of system architecture... one problem can have many right solutions and one solution can solve many problems... |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mackie Onyx pre Vs. 8-Bus pre
On Mar 23, 8:47 am, wrote:
I'm looking for best solution for my needs and I'm considering several kind of system architecture... one problem can have many right solutions and one solution can solve many problems... Thats' true, but there should be only one system engineer. That's you. It seems that you have a pretty good idea of what you need for the way you work. I don't know about the Ghost, but I can tell you that for an Onxy, with the TRIM control set to maximum gain (and I assure you, there's nothing wrong with turning a knob all the way if that's what works) an input level of -20 dBu to the Mic/Line input will give you full output (just below clipping) on the channel. That should be enough gain for any synth and there should be no need for a DI into a mic preamp. All of the channels of a 1640 have inputs like this, though the "non-mic" inputs on the first two channels are high impedance and are optimized for instrument pickups. Though they don't go though the same mic preamp circuitry as the "line" inputs on the other channels, they still have the same gain structure. The stereo Line (only) inputs on the other Onyx models are less sensitive, and at full gain require a level of 0 dBu to reach the channel clipping level. This might be considered "weak" by some. These are the kind of things that you should know (and that aren't always published in an easily interpretable manner). And to go along with that, you need to know the output levels of the synths that you intend to use with the mixer. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mackie Onyx pre Vs. 8-Bus pre
Mike Rivers wrote:
I don't know about the Ghost, but I can tell you that for an Onxy, with the TRIM control set to maximum gain (and I assure you, there's nothing wrong with turning a knob all the way if that's what works) an input level of -20 dBu to the Mic/Line input will give you full output (just below clipping) on the channel. ... The stereo Line (only) inputs on the other Onyx models are less sensitive, and at full gain require a level of 0 dBu to reach the channel clipping level. ....but do watch the bus levels on the Onyx. It shares the headroom limitations of the earlier Mackie designs. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mackie Onyx pre Vs. 8-Bus pre
Kurt Albershardt wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: I don't know about the Ghost, but I can tell you that for an Onxy, with the TRIM control set to maximum gain (and I assure you, there's nothing wrong with turning a knob all the way if that's what works) an input level of -20 dBu to the Mic/Line input will give you full output (just below clipping) on the channel. ... The stereo Line (only) inputs on the other Onyx models are less sensitive, and at full gain require a level of 0 dBu to reach the channel clipping level. ...but do watch the bus levels on the Onyx. It shares the headroom limitations of the earlier Mackie designs. Does it still make a sonic difference to mute all the unused channels? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Just bought Mackie Onyx need some help | Pro Audio | |||
FS:mackie onyx with FW | Pro Audio | |||
Mackie Onyx 800R VS Onyx 1640 w/FW card | Pro Audio | |||
FS Mackie Onyx | Pro Audio | |||
Mackie vlz pro Xdr mic pre vs Onyx mic pre | Pro Audio |