Mackie Onyx pre Vs. 8-Bus pre

[[email protected]]

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 are:

- 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

[Mike Rivers]

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.

[Scott Dorsey]

> 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 are:
>
>- 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."

[[email protected]]

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 are:
>
> >- 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

[Laurence Payne]

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.

[[email protected]]

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

[Mike Rivers]

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.

[Mike Rivers]

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."

[[email protected]]

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 ...

[[email protected]]

> 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...

[Mike Rivers]

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.

[Kurt Albershardt]

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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."