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All the original products that gave Mackie its start have been superceded by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All the original products that gave Mackie its start have been superceded by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.

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-

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

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.

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

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-

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?

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

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!

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.

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

Mike Rivers wrote:

kurt writes:

They're a little limited in the bass department, but that's to be expected

Anything new on the noise issue that Hank was complaining about a
couple of months back?

Mackie provided a mod kit and instructions - been done. While the
retro**** did lower the spurious racket from the woofer it didn't get
near acceptable levels. But the new ones I auditioned at a GC in Austin
earlier this week are dead quiet, wooferly speaking, with a remaining
low level tweeter hiss. All in all the current production seems ready
for primetime.

I cannot overemphasize my appreciation of the crossover region and the
horn's dispersion.

And a way to defeat the built-in dynamics
booster thing?

Wire snips; takes out the problem and your warranty all in one move. But
I'd have to do this. The automatic loudness compensation is knee'd at
about 157 Hz, Q of 1.1 and boost of _8 dB_. I used a pair for amping
jazz guitar at two gigs; while hitting little high note chords all was
tasty. Drop onto all six strings for a fattie with moving bass line and
the ALC made me louder on the bottom than the bass player, for the first
chord shot. EQ upstream doesn't solve it. Imagine using these for stage
mons with truly acoustic music of sufficient dynamic range to have the
speakers helpfully turning the bottom up and down for you.

This "feature" should be switchable.

--
ha

In article writes:

Mackie provided a mod kit and instructions - been done. While the
retro**** did lower the spurious racket from the woofer it didn't get
near acceptable levels. But the new ones I auditioned at a GC in Austin
earlier this week are dead quiet, wooferly speaking, with a remaining
low level tweeter hiss. All in all the current production seems ready
for primetime.

There was a time when Mackie would replace your speakers with new
ones. Have you asked?

The automatic loudness compensation is knee'd at
about 157 Hz, Q of 1.1 and boost of _8 dB_.

If you know what to snip, you know what to switch. Is there a place
you could mount a switch? On the other hand, it sounds like either
you'd want it or you wouldn't, so you could take it out and never miss
it.

--
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

Hey Hank, can you get me up to speed on the issue you are referring to with
the older model 350's and some hum? I have noticed a fair amount of hiss and
some occassional liud hum from ours, which are about 2 years old. You said
in an earlier post that Mackie has replacement parts or even entire drivers
for these units?

-Ben

"hank alrich" wrote in message
.. .
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

there's no such thing as 2 year old srm350s - - maybe 450s?

"Ben Hanson" wrote in message
...
Hey Hank, can you get me up to speed on the issue you are referring to
with
the older model 350's and some hum? I have noticed a fair amount of hiss
and
some occassional liud hum from ours, which are about 2 years old. You said
in an earlier post that Mackie has replacement parts or even entire
drivers
for these units?

-Ben

"hank alrich" wrote in message
.. .
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

Yep, I meant 450's indeed

"skhoover" wrote in message
...
there's no such thing as 2 year old srm350s - - maybe 450s?

"Ben Hanson" wrote in message
...
Hey Hank, can you get me up to speed on the issue you are referring to
with
the older model 350's and some hum? I have noticed a fair amount of hiss
and
some occassional liud hum from ours, which are about 2 years old. You
said
in an earlier post that Mackie has replacement parts or even entire
drivers
for these units?

-Ben

"hank alrich" wrote in message
.. .
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