Print

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

[J-Ro]

Shawn,

Thanks for taking the time to do the "shootout."  I'm doing a live Jazz recording at a club for a friend and I have the option to use (for free) a Mackie ONYX.  I was very aprehensive at first b/c of the pre's, but I'm not so disaproving after hearing your comparison.  I would love to be able to rent some GML's, Neve's, etc. and go straight to tape/disc, but FREE is better in this case I think!  Eh?!?

[Ashermusic]

My friend, Drew Daniels who records Roger Kelloway live, uses the Mackie Onyx pres and the recordings sound spectacular. He won a Grammy for one of his Kelloway CDs also.

[Daniel Asti]

Shawn Sullivan wrote on Fri, 13 May 2005 04:06

heres a little mic pre comparison between a mackie onyx 1640 board with eq bypassed and a vintech class a x81 (neve 1073 pre clone) with eq bypassed as well.

I believe the vintech x81 is a clone of a neve 1081 channel. Vintech x73 and x73i are both clones of 1073 channels.

The Neve 1081 and Neve 1073 sound a good deal different to my ears. Honestly, a pretty good deal "different".

Are the drums a split stereo signal (not sure if you did this or not??) ... I don't know if Vintech makes a 2 channel 1081 clone with eq or a 2 channel 1081 clone.

I'm not sure why the manley is in there? I suppose I can understand some extra soft limiting for overs but very little for a test like this.

Mostly I'd like to hear more samples of different instruments and voices and I'd like to see the signal split after the microphone...

Thanks for your time - I'm not trying to criticize to much just genuinely have some questions here...

[Daniel Asti]

I really hope that you can follow up with some of the concerns that I'm listing here. If you have this gear around I would like to make some suggestions on how to even this out.

First I would like to take that particular mic out of the equation. I would also like the massive passive, which sounds gorgeous taken out.

If you are using the Fostex P400 matrix box and sending Left to one pre and Right to the other I would like that removed from the equation.

It would also seem like a good idea to take a couple pictures of what is going on. I'm not suggesting that you are trying to fool anyone but it's only fair to these companies and everyone who is putting their trust in this to know what is going on.. It takes very little time to snap and post and I'm sure you'll understand.

I think that when comparing these things it's in the interest of people who work their whole live in developing class A electronics to have them tested and compared a little more carefully.

Thanks...

[Daniel Asti]

I talked to Vintech today and they told me that the x81 does use the Vintech x73 preamp.

I was incorrect about it being a 1081 clone. I'm hoping to get a unit for testing...

d

[Robert]

Wow, I couldn't agree more..  

You need Good musicians and just as important a good song and arrangement, then a good performance.  The Technology is the piece that captures that, and yes one could argue with an XYZ pre or Boutique mic you get more of the original sound..  But no one can argue the points previously made. Musicians, Arrangement, Song and performance.

A bad song or performance can be recorded well, but it is still a bad performance.

My 2 cents is worth as much as yours!!!

[Duardo]

Quote:

I talked to Vintech today and they told me that the x81 does use the Vintech x73 preamp.

Yes, it uses the 1073-style preamp, but the EQ is based on the 1081.

-Duardo

[intervalkid]

I thought the neve had a slightly tighter response overall and slightly more definition. Very slight.  The bass drum definitely had more "smack" to it on the neve while the mackie had more "puh".  The ride on the neve was more defined and "glossy" sounding while the mackie was somewhat airy.
The snare was hard to compare because of the performance differences.  The first recording through the mackie had more even snare hits while the neve recording hits were popping out more.  Like I said, I think ths was more of a performance issue than the pre.  For the price there isn't a difference great enough to warrant the expenditure unless you have an abundance of cash.  I think the only really noticeable difference of any import would be apparent after tracks stacked up.  In a full mix you would probably be able to tell the difference in qaulity much more readily.

[compasspnt]

intervalkid wrote on Sun, 03 September 2006 02:41

I think the only really noticeable difference of any import would be apparent after tracks stacked up.  In a full mix you would probably be able to tell the difference in qaulity much more readily.

[karloff70]

But Radioheads "the bends" is done on an MTA desk.....

[Mark Pixley]

I can vouch for MAckies ability to take a normal signal and add a bit of ice to it.

Over many channels I suppose it could get down right global warming ice age on us.

But as per the price point...I envision a greater degree of difference than exist.

Perhaps I'm just romantic about my hard earned cash and to idealistic in my expectations.

Like everyone else I want a nice vintage sound for a cheap digital mass production price.

So sue me.

[rubbermatch]

I'm hearing a big enough difference in the two pre's that I would not use the Mackie straight up. It's bigger than subtle, it's large. The Onyx has harsh highs, loud sloppy mids and underpowered bass. The Neve is tight from top to bottom and here's what the mackie doesn't have, depth and dimension, which you can only get through a well designed and manufactured circuit. The Onyx is also missing musicality and since that's what I do for hours on end, I wouldn't mix or record with it. After the tracks added up, so would the onyx's masked noise crerating a harsh, dry sounding, depthless mix, which I hate.

[faderbaby]

After the tracks added up, so would the onyx's masked noise ...


I don't think Mackies have a noise problem. And, in the old days, masking meant you couldn't hear it .