Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[voidar]

Ok, so what is the general consensus on these? I am thinking of maybe getting a 16:2 to use as my recording front-end, so I am mainly interested in the micpre's as I hear they warm up quite nicely when driven hard.

I wish I could afford a couple of SCA, or JLM TMP-8 modules, but I cant at this time, or most likely in the distant future.

[lincolnhwyguitarman]

I have one but don't use it in a studio. The thing is built like a tank. The EQ is very usable and the pres, to my stone ears, sound good. We use it as a monitor mixer.

[voidar]

lincolnhwyguitarman wrote on Tue, 26 October 2004 12:33

I have one but don't use it in a studio. The thing is built like a tank. The EQ is very usable and the pres, to my stone ears, sound good. We use it as a monitor mixer.

But would you use it for recording (drums or live especially)? Probalby not if you have better alternatives. To put it this way, what do the pres lack in character? Pros/cons.
I think there is a general agreement on that A&H gear sounds better than Mackie gear. My question would thus be why? What characteristics does A&H gear have which put them above Mackie?

The MixWizard is easy to configure in many ways it seems. You can have the record outs set as post-fader which means you can run the pres quite hot, and having heard from different people that A&H gear clips/distorts in a pleasant fashion, this is very cool.

[Tomas Danko]

voidar wrote on Tue, 26 October 2004 20:43

But would you use it for recording (drums or live especially)? Probalby not if you have better alternatives. To put it this way, what do the pres lack in character? Pros/cons. I think there is a general agreement on that A&H gear sounds better than Mackie gear. My question would thus be why? What characteristics does A&H gear have which put them above Mackie?

I've been using the pre's in my Saber for a lot of recording; drums, guitars and so on. They've got a lot of juice and power, outperforming several outboard preamps around mid-price and above. Hit a snare with an SM57 at minimum gain and it goes through the roof, I sometimes have to pad that pre. I mean, most other cheap desks I've used will require you to crank the gain to even get the SM57'ed snare popping.

The pre's will saturate and distort in a pleasant manner, I've been using it to dial in overdrive that can sometimes sound much better than pedals etc

The EQ is very responsive, and you can usually boost a lot more while maintaining a musical sound compared to Mackie etc. However, whenever I listen and EQ without watching it turns out that very little EQ boost is needed to have things happen to the sound. That's where a good EQ starts, in my book.

With a lot of cheaper EQ you hear things go "swoosch" when tweaking the sweeps, but with some better stuff you don't hear that. Instead, you hear the EQ actually massaging what's already there in the sound. If it ain't there, you can't boost it, and if it ain't noise it won't swoosch. The Allen & Heath EQ in the older consoles are like this. Mackie and especially Behringer go swoosch on me.

Someone wrote that the newer versions didn't sound as good as the old ones and I have to agree. Although the recent ones don't sound bad at all, still I feel they lack some of the depth and rich character you can get with the earlier models.


Only too bad it can be a bit noisy sometimes, but nothing that would prevent you from making beautiful music.

Cheers,

Tomas Danko
www.danko.se

[Philip Perkins]

I have both the Allen and Heath and a Mackie.   In my use the mic pres in the AH have been inferior in every way to the Mackies: noisier, less headroom, more brittle sounding.  However, just about everything else about the AH is better--EQ, faders, mix bus etc etc.  SO, I use the
AH in the studio (line inputs from external pres etc) and the Mackie for location recording w/ mics.

Philip Perkins

[voidar]

Thanks for the input. I am trying to dig up everything I can find on this unit - and there is a lot of incompatible impression.
There is an older version going for about $700 on ebay right now though. I don't know whether to get this or buy a new gen. 3.

Perhaps I should consider the Soundcraft Spirit FX16 also? It seems to be similar, though cheaper and only 3-band EQ.

But I want to stress, I am only into this for the pres. Sure, a good EQ could be usefull, and sometimes they act as being part of the pres, but thats it.

This is all really confusing, hehe.

[Incognito]

I'd suggest looking at the Mackie Onyx series. I definitely prefer the sound to the MixWizard (which is also a pretty decent cheap board) - particularly the sound of the pres. IMO, most all recent offerings from Soundcraft, A&H, Mackie, and Peavey have completely usable preamps and will probably not be your weakest link in the chain.

[voidar]

Incognito wrote on Thu, 28 October 2004 02:18

I'd suggest looking at the Mackie Onyx series. I definitely prefer the sound to the MixWizard (which is also a pretty decent cheap board) - particularly the sound of the pres. IMO, most all recent offerings from Soundcraft, A&H, Mackie, and Peavey have completely usable preamps and will probably not be your weakest link in the chain.

I am not sure I want to believe the Mackie-hype. A&H reputedly has a better EQ, and when on this level I might be better of with a good EQ than an "ok" preamp. Or? As you say, they are all usable, so maybe I should choose for the best EQ section.

Another point against the Mackie is that I don't need the Firewire interface, and I fear I might be paying more for less due to it. I already have an ok ADDA interface (Creamware A16U).

How are the Soundcraft Spirit Folio FX16, anyone?

[floodstage]

I believe the firewire interface on the Mackie is optional and costs extra so you wouldn't pay for it if you didn't want it.

(btw, I haven't heard the new Mackies yet so I don't know if they are any good or not.)

[Incognito]

voidar wrote on Thu, 28 October 2004 12:51

I am not sure I want to believe the Mackie-hype. A&H reputedly has a better EQ, and when on this level I might be better of with a good EQ than an "ok" preamp. Or? As you say, they are all usable, so maybe I should choose for the best EQ section. ... How are the Soundcraft Spirit Folio FX16, anyone?

Well, if it's preamp the Mackie Onyx is noticably better, IMO. I rarely use console EQ, so I'll pass on the comparison there.

As far as the FX16, they sound fine - I was just helping one of my neighbors use his to record his band in his little studio. It's more of a small live board. Comparable to Mackie VLZ series, but not as good as the MixWizard or Onyx. Again, these are just my opinions, but I sure wouldn't hesitate to record through the Onyx.

[voidar]

Incognito wrote on Thu, 28 October 2004 21:32

voidar wrote on Thu, 28 October 2004 12:51 I am not sure I want to believe the Mackie-hype. A&H reputedly has a better EQ, and when on this level I might be better of with a good EQ than an "ok" preamp. Or? As you say, they are all usable, so maybe I should choose for the best EQ section. ... How are the Soundcraft Spirit Folio FX16, anyone? Well, if it's preamp the Mackie Onyx is noticably better, IMO. I rarely use console EQ, so I'll pass on the comparison there. As far as the FX16, they sound fine - I was just helping one of my neighbors use his to record his band in his little studio. It's more of a small live board. Comparable to Mackie VLZ series, but not as good as the MixWizard or Onyx. Again, these are just my opinions, but I sure wouldn't hesitate to record through the Onyx.

I see, well, thanks. One last question. Would you know if I would be better of getting a board like this rather than dedicated preamps like the 8 channel RME, MAudio or simial units?

[Oliver]

I bought a second gen. 16:2 brand new for $800 about 2 months ago for the same purpose as you. I don't know if these are still in stock anywhere but you may be able to find a really good deal if so. I haven't been able to compare it to the other boards mentioned so I can't offer any advice there. The pres are noisier than I'd like but that might just be par for the course at this pricepoint. I figured I could do a lot worse than to get, hopefully, 16 useable pres and have the ability to do a bunch of headphone mixes for $800. I plan to add better pres as money allows and then just use the board for monitoring and phone mixes. It racks nicely in an SKB GigRig over the Alesis HD24 with plenty of room for more pres/compressors/whatever. I should be doing my first session with all this next weekend so I'll report back if anything extraordinarily good or bad happens. Good luck.

[rvdsm]

This is funny because I asked this same question in another forum and was told that hands down A&H stuff was better than Mackie.

If you were to ask me if the Alesis Studio32 was a good mixer, I would laugh hysterically then promptly die (from laughing). That, of course, is because I used to own one and hated it with a passion. Having never used any other 16-channel mixer in a similiar price range it's hard to say how well the Alesis truly held up to the competition. The one thing I know for sure is this; If the sound quality of these $1000 16-channel mixers don't get much better than my old Alesis, then I say to hell with the rest. I don't wany ANY of them!

[Incognito]

rvdsm wrote on Fri, 29 October 2004 20:28

If you were to ask me if the Alesis Studio32 was a good mixer, I would laugh hysterically then promptly die (from laughing). That, of course, is because I used to own one and hated it with a passion. Having never used any other 16-channel mixer in a similiar price range it's hard to say how well the Alesis truly held up to the competition. The one thing I know for sure is this; If the sound quality of these $1000 16-channel mixers don't get much better than my old Alesis, then I say to hell with the rest. I don't wany ANY of them!

Well, the Studio 32 was an inline mixer - there's nothing else like that in the price range because trying to make something good that's an inline design for under a thousand bucks is like having a Corvette with a wind-up motor. I can assure you that the Alesis Studio 32 is NOT typical of a mixer in this price point, so please don't judge the good of the many from the bad of the one.

[Incognito]

voidar wrote on Fri, 29 October 2004 08:25

Would you know if I would be better of getting a board like this rather than dedicated preamps like the 8 channel RME, MAudio or simial units?

I don't know what you'd like better. Please keep in mind, though, that the cleanest path is the shortest path and weighing in on the pricing side, with a pre, that's ALL you're paying for. You're not paying for busses and EQ and Aux's, etc., so buck for buck you buck may be better spent on something dedicated to what you want to accomplish (in other words, buy the RME pre ).

[voidar]

Incognito wrote on Sat, 30 October 2004 01:17

voidar wrote on Fri, 29 October 2004 08:25 Would you know if I would be better of getting a board like this rather than dedicated preamps like the 8 channel RME, MAudio or simial units? I don't know what you'd like better. Please keep in mind, though, that the cleanest path is the shortest path and weighing in on the pricing side, with a pre, that's ALL you're paying for. You're not paying for busses and EQ and Aux's, etc., so buck for buck you buck may be better spent on something dedicated to what you want to accomplish (in other words, buy the RME pre ).

Well, I basically just want 16 pres to get them signals into my DAW, where I will be mixing things on dedicated DSP gear (Creamware), so dedicated pres would be the cleanest path. But then the question would be what units would be the best choice, because there quite some budget types out there aswell as expensive types. And I really would like to be able to go from transparent to having some character from the pres if needed, and I do not believe I will get that from RME, M-Audio, Presonus etc. units. I guess I'll just save my money for something decent.. :/ The jlmaudio.com TMP-8 might be the best choice, or perhaps I should go into seventhcircleaudio.com N72's etc. That way I could expand over the years.

[Hallams]

I have used the A@H mixwizard for a few years now and like it a lot for live recording. It has a minimum signal path when recording from the direct outs and wide bandwidth to 40Khz. To my ears it has a fairly transparent or neutral sound and having the mid sweeps british designed is an advantage over the Mackie.I prefer it to Mackie or Soundcraft because it is more robust with individual PCB's .

[voidar]

Hallams wrote on Wed, 03 November 2004 22:36

I have used the A@H mixwizard for a few years now and like it a lot for live recording. It has a minimum signal path when recording from the direct outs and wide bandwidth to 40Khz. To my ears it has a fairly transparent or neutral sound and having the mid sweeps british designed is an advantage over the Mackie.I prefer it to Mackie or Soundcraft because it is more robust with individual PCB's .

What if you would run the pres hot, would they sound remotely warm, do you know? I guess you will have to do the post-fader modification for this to be possible.

[Roger Langvik]

I've used the GL2200 for recording and that board sounds clean, open and such.  
But the pre's on that board hate being pushed. It's a nasty, scratchy, distortion that doesn't belong anywhere.