I've heard from a handful of people that Mackie is worthless. My church
uses a midrange Mackie (it's a vlz-80, i think) board speakers, and i
think they work fine. So somebody, everybody, tell me, are they good or
bad?

-dano

wrote in message
oups.com...
I've heard from a handful of people that Mackie is worthless. My church
uses a midrange Mackie (it's a vlz-80, i think) board speakers, and i
think they work fine. So somebody, everybody, tell me, are they good or
bad?

-dano


They are OK.

Predrag

In article .com,
wrote:
I've heard from a handful of people that Mackie is worthless. My church
uses a midrange Mackie (it's a vlz-80, i think) board speakers, and i
think they work fine. So somebody, everybody, tell me, are they good or
bad?

Mackie has been around for a long time. They have made a lot of different
kinds of gear.

For a long time, Mackie was pretty much the best console available in the MI
market. That's not saying much, but their small consoles were respectable
and worked well enough.

Two thing have happened, though: first of all Mackie got into the larger
console market and has tried to compete with the big guys, and secondly they
have branched out into other products besides consoles.

This means that, if you want an 8-channel stage mixer, Mackie was about the
best you could get, but if you wanted a 48-channel 8-buss mixer, it was about
the worst you could get.

The truth is that now Mackie is moving production to China, the quality
seems to have suffered a lot. And the competition is getting better: for
example, A&H now has a workable little stage mixer with EQ that actually
sounds good.

Mackie also had a little reliability issue a couple years ago, which was
tracked down to a board pin connector problem. That did not help their
reputation any.

There is a huge gap between the MI-grade gear and the low-end pro-grade gear,
and Mackie is trying to straddle it. This seems like a bad idea to me, but
I'm not a marketing guy.

That said, I'd rather lick a toilet seat than have to use a Mackie SR 24-4
again. But their little studio monitors aren't half bad, and the 1202 is still
probably the best front end around in its price range.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Most people familer with Mackie agree that Mackie pre-amps are pretty
decent. It's the rest of the board that sucks. Mix busses, EQ all
sound bad. I finally bought an A&H Mix
Wizard for my band. It works and sounds great compaired to all the
Mackies we tried.

I've heard horror stories about the larger Mackie automated consoles.
IMHO Mackie is great at marketing....

DaveT

Hey Scott, just out of curiosity what did you hate so much about the 24-4?
We have one at my church and it seems to work OK.

-Ben


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
wrote:
I've heard from a handful of people that Mackie is worthless. My church
uses a midrange Mackie (it's a vlz-80, i think) board speakers, and i
think they work fine. So somebody, everybody, tell me, are they good or
bad?

Mackie has been around for a long time. They have made a lot of different
kinds of gear.

For a long time, Mackie was pretty much the best console available in the
MI
market. That's not saying much, but their small consoles were respectable
and worked well enough.

Two thing have happened, though: first of all Mackie got into the larger
console market and has tried to compete with the big guys, and secondly
they
have branched out into other products besides consoles.

This means that, if you want an 8-channel stage mixer, Mackie was about
the
best you could get, but if you wanted a 48-channel 8-buss mixer, it was
about
the worst you could get.

The truth is that now Mackie is moving production to China, the quality
seems to have suffered a lot. And the competition is getting better: for
example, A&H now has a workable little stage mixer with EQ that actually
sounds good.

Mackie also had a little reliability issue a couple years ago, which was
tracked down to a board pin connector problem. That did not help their
reputation any.

There is a huge gap between the MI-grade gear and the low-end pro-grade
gear,
and Mackie is trying to straddle it. This seems like a bad idea to me,
but
I'm not a marketing guy.

That said, I'd rather lick a toilet seat than have to use a Mackie SR 24-4
again. But their little studio monitors aren't half bad, and the 1202 is
still
probably the best front end around in its price range.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

wrote:

I've heard from a handful of people that Mackie is worthless. My church
uses a midrange Mackie (it's a vlz-80, i think) board speakers, and i
think they work fine. So somebody, everybody, tell me, are they good or
bad?

-dano

Their small stuff is very good value for the money. For sound
reinforcement
work where all you are doing is incidental music and speeches in not very
good acoustic environments, they are plenty good enough. If you are a
recording studio, they suck large rocks through small holes. Depends on
your application. My biggest beef with them is that they use ribbon
connectors internally, and they have, um, issues with reliability, and
service
on them is rather expensive, labor-wise.

--Dale

Dale Farmer wrote:

wrote:


I've heard from a handful of people that Mackie is worthless. My church
uses a midrange Mackie (it's a vlz-80, i think) board speakers, and i
think they work fine. So somebody, everybody, tell me, are they good or
bad?

-dano


Their small stuff is very good value for the money. For sound
reinforcement
work where all you are doing is incidental music and speeches in not very
good acoustic environments, they are plenty good enough. If you are a
recording studio, they suck large rocks through small holes. Depends on
your application. My biggest beef with them is that they use ribbon
connectors internally, and they have, um, issues with reliability, and
service
on them is rather expensive, labor-wise.

--Dale


Well from a live perspective I can do ANY job on a behringer I could do
on a mackie, except with the behringer I have spent 1/3 the money to get
it done, with at least equal quality and reliability
Mackie was a breakthrough product 15 years ago
it no longer is
today it is justWAY overpriced bottom feeder rig
Gorge

I will lean towards Scott's statement about Mackie being to the lower end of
the professional gear market. I myself do not like the sound that comes from
Mackie mixers, I have on one gig heard there speaker systems paired with one of
there mixers and it sounded good but not great or (if I where describing higher
end stuff) supper.
I have used a A&H mix wiz as a stage mixer for monitors and it did a good job
as well. I haven't used any of Mackie's larger more featured consoles but would
not be surprised if it was not of the highest quality.

I bought a Mackie 24x8 for our church back in the mid 90's. It is still
working fine. I agree there are much better 8 bus consoles, but not for
$2500-2800.

Our only issue was rf interference getting into those hot and broad
preamps that the older Mackies had. Maintaining good shield connections
throughout the audio paths, especially through the snake (32x8) controls
this problem.

I also have a 24x8 in a small teleproduction studio. That console is
having trouble with sticky/noisy switches, but I think we have a
humidity and dust problem that is contributing to that situation. I
picked up some cailube mcl that is helping.

I own two of their newer pieces (pair of SRM-350's and an Onyx 1620) and I'm quite happy with both of them.

The venerable 1220 is still a useful little box. Like others I have some bad memories of the larger SR boards.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:16:10 GMT, Dale Farmer
wrote:



wrote:

I've heard from a handful of people that Mackie is worthless. My church
uses a midrange Mackie (it's a vlz-80, i think) board speakers, and i
think they work fine. So somebody, everybody, tell me, are they good or
bad?

-dano

Their small stuff is very good value for the money. For sound
reinforcement
work where all you are doing is incidental music and speeches in not very
good acoustic environments, they are plenty good enough. If you are a
recording studio, they suck large rocks through small holes. Depends on
your application. My biggest beef with them is that they use ribbon
connectors internally, and they have, um, issues with reliability, and
service
on them is rather expensive, labor-wise.

I'm sure the repair issues are there, however a band I work with has
used a Mackie 1604 mixer for years without any failures. As others
have said, for small live mixers they work extremely well.

Al

wrote:

I've heard horror stories about the larger Mackie automated consoles.

Which one's would those be?

IMHO Mackie is great at marketing....

They are an excellent marketing machine. Now if they could only deliver
their "vapor-ware" in a timely manner.......

--
Eric

www.Raw-Tracks.com

Are you doing recording or live?
I have 1642 VLZ PRO. I use it for monitoring.
I have the output of D/A 1&2 going to tape in.
When you don't go through the faders & busses, you can hear the difference
in the imaging and depth big time. For what I use it for, it works fine.

Tom



wrote in message
oups.com...
I've heard from a handful of people that Mackie is worthless. My church
uses a midrange Mackie (it's a vlz-80, i think) board speakers, and i
think they work fine. So somebody, everybody, tell me, are they good or
bad?

-dano

Dale Farmer wrote:
your application. My biggest beef with them is that they use ribbon
connectors internally, and they have, um, issues with reliability, and
service on them is rather expensive, labor-wise.

That's precisely why our church has dropped the use of Mackie. We
suffered poor reliability with the internal ribbon connectors, and
channels would suddenly go dead.

We've switched our main FOH console to an A&H ML4000.

Like others have said, Mackie was good in the budget end of the market,
but when they tried to move up to the next market sector and compete
with the big boys, it all went horriby wrong.

Chris W

--
The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long,
but the words of the wise are quiet and few.
--

Tommy B wrote:
Are you doing recording or live?
I have 1642 VLZ PRO. I use it for monitoring.
I have the output of D/A 1&2 going to tape in.
When you don't go through the faders & busses, you can hear the difference
in the imaging and depth big time. For what I use it for, it works fine.

Tom



I would try to avoid them as live sound mixers
they generally sound harsh and the mix busses overload well under unity gain
they should be fine as a recording desk
but mackie is among the worst sounding hardest to use live sound desks
out there
G

In article writes:

wrote:

I've heard horror stories about the larger Mackie automated consoles.

Which one's would those be?

He's confused. The only automated console, while large, was the d8b
(and now the dXb) digital console. Mackie made a line of larger 8-bus
consoles intended for live sound, the 32-8, 40-8, and 56-8. Those had
many problems and have been gone from the product line for a long
time. Good intentions + inadequate attention to road rigors = bad
reputation. Ribbon cables were a major problem in some models,
including the d8b and the large format live sound consoles.

They are an excellent marketing machine. Now if they could only deliver
their "vapor-ware" in a timely manner.......

Nobody does. That's a marketing principle. You announce a new product
when it's time to slow down the interest in the competitor's products.
The classic example was Alesis' introduction of the ADAT a full year
and a half before it was available. But in that year and a half, a lot
of people put off their purchase of narrow gage analog 8-track
recorders.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

That said, I'd rather lick a toilet seat than have to use a Mackie SR 24-4
again. But their little studio monitors aren't half bad, and the 1202 is
still
probably the best front end around in its price range.

The Behringer MXB1002 has comparable sound quality, more channels, and can
run on batteries, all for about half the cost of a 1202. The Soundcraft
Notepad has better preamps, again less expensive.

I would try to avoid them as live sound mixers
they generally sound harsh and the mix busses overload well under unity
gain
they should be fine as a recording desk
but mackie is among the worst sounding hardest to use live sound desks
out there
G

Why would a harsh-sounding hard-to-use desk be fine for recording?

I've heard from a handful of people that Mackie is worthless. My church
uses a midrange Mackie (it's a vlz-80, i think) board speakers, and i
think they work fine. So somebody, everybody, tell me, are they good or
bad?

All the original products that gave Mackie its start have been superceded by
competitors, and most other products fall under the SSDP heading (same ****,
different pile), except that Mackie products cost more. Mackie's most
outstanding feature is marketing. In every other way they've lost their
teeth.

In general, if a Mackie product catches your eye, your next step is to find
out who makes a better alternative for less.

Sugarite wrote:

All the original products that gave Mackie its start have been superceded by
competitors, and most other products fall under the SSDP heading (same ****,
different pile), except that Mackie products cost more. Mackie's most
outstanding feature is marketing. In every other way they've lost their
teeth.

In general, if a Mackie product catches your eye, your next step is to find
out who makes a better alternative for less.


IMO, for the case of my Onyx 1620 and SRM-350's the above would not apply.

wrote:

I've heard from a handful of people that Mackie is worthless. My church
uses a midrange Mackie (it's a vlz-80, i think) board speakers, and i
think they work fine. So somebody, everybody, tell me, are they good or
bad?

You say you use it in a church. These often have lousy acoustics. In such a
situation any shortcomings in the Mackie will be dwarfed by your acoustics.

Graham

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
IMO, for the case of my Onyx 1620 and SRM-350's the above would not apply.

I agree. I have the 1640 and the 1620, and it looks like Mackie has broken the
mold and created a solid product.

-lee-

Sugarite wrote:
I would try to avoid them as live sound mixers
they generally sound harsh and the mix busses overload well under unity

gain

they should be fine as a recording desk
but mackie is among the worst sounding hardest to use live sound desks
out there
G


Why would a harsh-sounding hard-to-use desk be fine for recording?



I don't know seems recording people think the pre amps are OK
I have read that often
for live Mackie is just plain junk, no I take that back
it is expensive junk
george

All the original products that gave Mackie its start have been
superceded by
competitors, and most other products fall under the SSDP heading (same
****,
different pile), except that Mackie products cost more. Mackie's most
outstanding feature is marketing. In every other way they've lost their
teeth.

In general, if a Mackie product catches your eye, your next step is to
find
out who makes a better alternative for less.

IMO, for the case of my Onyx 1620 and SRM-350's the above would not apply.

I don't use plastic speakers so I wouldn't know which ones are less hideous.
The 1620 has a good feature set, but after 4 revisions of the preamp design,
each touting to be the best thing ever, I don't give a damn what Mackie
calls them, they're still run-of-the-mill op-amp junk, no more impressive
than the Behringer/Yorkville stuff. Soundcraft is about the only brand with
op-amp pre's that are semi-useable for recording, the rest are too similar
to worry about anything but price.

I'd love to see a third-party case for that Firewire card though! All it
needs is the power supply and suitable connectors, might even be possible to
bus-power the rascal. Imagine a sub-compact 16x2 24/96 Firewire interface
for under $600... a laptop MT recorder's dream!

In article ospam writes:

I agree. I have the 1640 and the 1620, and it looks like Mackie has broken the
mold and created a solid product.

I just got a pile of Onyxen in for evaluation. Anything I should look
for? The first thing I tried intuitively, plugging a generator into
the 1/4" jack on Channel 1, assuming it was a line input like all the
other channels. It didn't work.

I knew that a high impedance input was available with a swith on
Channels 1 and 2 - what I didn't realize until I looked at the block
diagram was that the switch doesn't convert the jack from a medium
impedance lowish gain input to a high impedance medium gain input, it
switches the channel input between the XLR connector and the 1/4"
jack. So if you want to use line inputs on Channels 1 and 2, you have
to select them for "guitar" input. It seems to have the same gain as
the line inputs, but it doesn't seem to be balanced like the other
1/4" inputs, so it isn't an exact replacement.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Sugarite wrote:
All the original products that gave Mackie its start have been
superceded by competitors, and most other products fall under
the SSDP heading (same ****, different pile), except that Mackie
products cost more.

IMO, for the case of my Onyx 1620 and SRM-350's the above would not apply.


I don't use plastic speakers so I wouldn't know which ones are less hideous.

Haven't heard the SRM-350's yet, have you?

They're a little limited in the bass department, but that's to be expected given the 10" LF driver. That keeps the weight down and the cabinet excitement to a minimum. Pair them with a sub and they can really put out. I wouldn't try doing a metal band with them but then again, I don't do metal bands. Better midrange than anything I can think of costing less than 3x their price.





The 1620 has a good feature set, but after 4 revisions of the preamp design,
each touting to be the best thing ever, I don't give a damn what Mackie
calls them, they're still run-of-the-mill op-amp junk, no more impressive
than the Behringer/Yorkville stuff.

Haven't heard them yet, have you?

The Onyx preamps are much more impressive than the current crop of Behringer & Yorkville stuff.

My only serious beef with the board so far is the 60mm faders.

I will stay with my Yamaha M-916 board It will blow away any mackie board ,
"Leoaw3" wrote in message
...
Kurt Albershardt wrote:
IMO, for the case of my Onyx 1620 and SRM-350's the above would not
apply.

I agree. I have the 1640 and the 1620, and it looks like Mackie has
broken the
mold and created a solid product.

-lee-

Mike Rivers wrote:

I just got a pile of Onyxen in for evaluation. Anything I should
look for?

You don't have to look very far to notice the new EQ (and proper bypass switch.) Main reason I opted for the 1620 rather than the 1220 was its additional (sweepable) mid.



The first thing I tried intuitively, plugging a generator into
the 1/4" jack on Channel 1, assuming it was a line input like all the
other channels. It didn't work.

I knew that a high impedance input was available with a swith on
Channels 1 and 2 - what I didn't realize until I looked at the block
diagram was that the switch doesn't convert the jack from a medium
impedance lowish gain input to a high impedance medium gain input, it
switches the channel input between the XLR connector and the 1/4"
jack. So if you want to use line inputs on Channels 1 and 2, you have
to select them for "guitar" input. It seems to have the same gain as
the line inputs, but it doesn't seem to be balanced like the other
1/4" inputs, so it isn't an exact replacement.

Right, it's a DI.

Plenty of line inputs on the other channels, particularly on the 2-bus models.

Charles Swanson wrote:
I will stay with my Yamaha M-916 board It will blow away any mackie board ,

Assuming it's been well maintained, of course.

And to be fair, what did it cost when new?

That said, I'd rather lick a toilet seat than have to use a Mackie SR 24-4
again.

Thanks, Scott. I'm trying to eat breakfast here. Now I'll have the revolting
image of mixing on an SR24-4 in my mind all day. You rotter.

But their little studio monitors aren't half bad, BRBR

Not only not half bad, I find them far easier on the ears over a period of many
hours than the Genelecs which cost considerably more & are as ubiquitous in
studios now as Auratones used to be.
Scott Fraser

He's confused. The only automated console, while large, was the d8b
(and now the dXb) digital console. Mackie made a line of larger 8-bus
consoles intended for live sound, the 32-8, 40-8, and 56-8. Those had
many problems and have been gone from the product line for a long
time. Good intentions + inadequate attention to road rigors = bad
reputation. Ribbon cables were a major problem in some models,
including the d8b and the large format live sound consoles.

The mutes & scenes were automated on the xx-8 large format PA desks, & they
were very flaky. Must have been a processor issue, but I sometimes found them
frozen on power up (all mute, & unresponsive to commands) & occasionally had
them crash mid show. The most fitting end to one of these pieces of crap was
the time a pipe burst in the attic above a sound booth, leaking profusely on
the Mackie during a show. The lighting designer & I took turns holding buckets
over the desk until the show was over. Then we walked away & just let it rain
on the board.

Scott Fraser

I will stay with my Yamaha M-916 board It will blow away any mackie board ,
BRBR

Well, transformers for one. And how much does the 916 weigh? I always liked the
A-B switching in those mixers.

Scott Fraser

ScotFraser wrote:
That said, I'd rather lick a toilet seat than have to use a Mackie SR 24-4
again.

Thanks, Scott. I'm trying to eat breakfast here. Now I'll have the revolting
image of mixing on an SR24-4 in my mind all day. You rotter.

But their little studio monitors aren't half bad, BRBR

Not only not half bad, I find them far easier on the ears over a period of many
hours than the Genelecs which cost considerably more & are as ubiquitous in
studios now as Auratones used to be.

Check out the new Genelecs, though! Apparently the competition from the Mackie
and Hafler monitors basically drove them to revamp their lower end models,
and the improvement is considerable. However, the new ones are all pretty
much voiced to sound the same, unlike the 103x series. This gives you a lot
less of a choice; you get a bigger monitor and all you get is improved LF
extension, no other real changes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

ScotFraser wrote:
My biggest beef with them is that they use ribbon
connectors internally, and they have, um, issues with reliability, BRBR

Ribbon connectors aren't inherently a problem. It's bad implementation of
ribbon connectors. Soundcraft used them for years & it became common practice
before soundcheck & showtime on 200 through 2400 series desks to vigorously
press down the middle of each module several times to work the connection.
Seems a lot of bad designs mated aluminum contacts in the ribbon to copper
traces on the card, resulting in dielectric corrosion.

Mackie basically sourced the cable end from one manufacturer and the
card end from another, and they turned out to have compatibility problems
in the long run. This caused a _lot_ of failures on some series of Mackie
consoles.

BUT, when it became clear there was a problem, they did their best to fix it.
They send out free replacement cables to just about anybody who calls and
asks for them. If you have a Mackie console with that sort of flakiness, and
you're okay with a screwdriver, it won't cost you anything other than the
phone call to fix it.

The ribbon cables aren't the problem, the problem was someone in procurement
at Mackie getting a good deal that turned out not to be so good. But the
fact that they are still, years later, working hard to make good on their
error is impressive.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
ScotFraser wrote:

That said, I'd rather lick a toilet seat than have to use a Mackie
SR 24-4 again.

Thanks, Scott. I'm trying to eat breakfast here. Now I'll have the revolting
image of mixing on an SR24-4 in my mind all day. You rotter.


But their little studio monitors aren't half bad

Not only not half bad, I find them far easier on the ears over a period of many
hours than the Genelecs which cost considerably more & are as ubiquitous in
studios now as Auratones used to be.


Check out the new Genelecs, though! Apparently the competition from the Mackie
and Hafler monitors basically drove them to revamp their lower end models,
and the improvement is considerable.

I was fairly impressed with the demo I heard at AES. Impressed enough that I have a pair of 8040A's coming next week for eval.



However, the new ones are all pretty much voiced to sound the same,
unlike the 103x series. This gives you a lot less of a choice;
you get a bigger monitor and all you get is improved LF
extension, no other real changes.

And a little more output level.

The 8050A has an 1800 Hz crossover and a 1" dome (versus 3k crossover and a 3/4" dome on the 8030A and 8040A.)

Check out the new Genelecs, though! Apparently the competition from the
Mackie
and Hafler monitors basically drove them to revamp their lower end models,
and the improvement is considerable. BRBR

To my ears they couldn't get much worse. Glad they saw the need for
improvement.

Scott Fraser

In article writes:

Haven't heard the SRM-350's yet, have you?

They're a little limited in the bass department, but that's to be expected
given the 10" LF driver.

Anything new on the noise issue that Hank was complaining about a
couple of months back? And a way to defeat the built-in dynamics
booster thing?


The 1620 has a good feature set, but after 4 revisions of the preamp design,
each touting to be the best thing ever, I don't give a damn what Mackie
calls them, they're still run-of-the-mill op-amp junk

Actually, they have always had discrete transistor front ends.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

The mutes & scenes were automated on the xx-8 large format PA desks, & they
were very flaky.

We don't call those Mackie consoles.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

Plenty of line inputs on the other channels, particularly on the 2-bus models.

Yeah, but I was going to write up an application note to use it as an
in-line 16-track recording board. I guess you can still go into those
DI channels through the insert return and the only think you miss is
the high pass filter. It's after the D-sub direct outputs, and the
insert return is after the high pass filter.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Sugarite wrote:

I don't use plastic speakers so I wouldn't know which ones are less hideous.

You can hear the plastic...

The SRM350's, if of current manufacture which lacks the hum and buzz of
some of the earlier units, are silly good for their size and weight,
nevermind their cost. The horn/tweeter match to the woofer and
smoothness of dispersion are truly outstanding, IMO. Lots of speakers
costing plenty more don't handle that transition as well as the SRM350's
do.

The problem of the automatic loudness compensation remains, but can be
disabled with small wire snips. I just did a small gig using a pair
along with a 2x12 Bag End sub. Plenty of clean SPL for about 300 folks
at a dance showcase, and excellent room coverage.

--
ha