Mackie 32/8 vs Soundcraft Ghost
Billy Hume
Billy Hume - The Zone
hu...@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~hume
Does anyone have advice or opinions on the Soundcraft Ghost vs the Mackie
32x8?
Alot of people I know have the MAckie, but the MAckie does not have a
phase invert switch on each channel. Also, the MAckie is suposed to have
great mic pres, but the Soundcraft is suposed to be good too. I've only
worked on my old Ramsa 8816 for 12 years and an old SSL (the 11th ever
made) for about 3 years, so I don't really have much to compare to.
Thanks, Billy
awe...@aol.com
In article <5685k3$l...@camel0.mindspring.com>, Billy Hume
<hu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>Does anyone have advice or opinions on the Soundcraft Ghost vs the Mackie
>32x8?
>Alot of people I know have the MAckie, but the MAckie does not have a
>phase invert switch on each channel. Also, the MAckie is suposed to have
>great mic pres, but the Soundcraft is suposed to be good too. I've only
>worked on my old Ramsa 8816 for 12 years and an old SSL (the 11th ever
>made) for about 3 years, so I don't really have much to compare to.
>
>Thanks, Billy
Well my opinion is biased as I work for Soundcraft. So to get around my
bias I challenge people to go look and listen to the Ghost and Mackie side
by side, and judge for themselves. The AES was great as the Sascom Booth
had a Ghost and a mackie side by side to demonstrate the Optifile DRAX
Automation package. I was happy to send people by to see the two consoles
because there just is no comparison.
Ghost has the phase switch and 48V switch on every mic-pre. The mic pre
is the best Soundcraft mic pre ever, and the EQ is great. Not to mention
more flexibility in routing and superior construction.
You see, most of the R+D was already done. The EQ was adapted from the
Series 3200 (a $100K+ console), the routing adapted from the Sapphyre
($60K), the computer adapted from the DC2020 ($40K). It's not surprising
that people are comparing it's sound to big desks (one reported that it
beats the Amek!). The parts are not cheap either, Soundcraft saves money
by buying the parts in large quantities, so the parts in the Ghost are the
same grade as what goes into the bigger consoles (with the exception of
custom faders and custom EQ tapers for the ghost). The money saved on R+D
and parts is why the Ghost is so affordable.
I would think that if Mackie or Berhinger wanted to R+D a high-end console
from scratch and upgrade the components to Soundcraft standards (1) they
would have to double the price to break even, and (2) they would be
getting into a whole new league of design players, a league Soundcraft has
been in for 23 years. The Soundcraft R+D effort is run by a former Neve
designer. Little known fact, Soundcraft is the largest mixing board
manufacturer in the World (if not the US)... O.K. I'm finished blowing my
horn. Really, go see the Ghost and put it side by side with the
competition! ;-)
Alex Welti
Billy Hume
>Well my opinion is biased as I work for Soundcraft. So to get around my
>bias I challenge people to go look and listen to the Ghost and Mackie side
>by side, and judge for themselves. The AES was great as the Sascom Booth
>had a Ghost and a mackie side by side to demonstrate the Optifile DRAX
>Automation package. I was happy to send people by to see the two consoles
>because there just is no comparison.
>
>Ghost has the phase switch and 48V switch on every mic-pre. The mic pre
>is the best Soundcraft mic pre ever, and the EQ is great. Not to mention
>more flexibility in routing and superior construction.
>
>You see, most of the R+D was already done. The EQ was adapted from the
>Series 3200 (a $100K+ console), the routing adapted from the Sapphyre
>($60K), the computer adapted from the DC2020 ($40K). It's not surprising
>that people are comparing it's sound to big desks (one reported that it
>beats the Amek!). The parts are not cheap either, Soundcraft saves money
>by buying the parts in large quantities, so the parts in the Ghost are the
>same grade as what goes into the bigger consoles (with the exception of
>custom faders and custom EQ tapers for the ghost). The money saved on R+D
>and parts is why the Ghost is so affordable.
Thanks for responding.
I have been out and listened to both boards these past few days, tho I
can't find a place here in Atlanta where they are in the same room. I am
leaning towards the Ghost against the collective push towards the
Mackie. But I was wondering a couple of things:
1) What is 'VLZ'? Mackie has it. I thought I saw some Soundcraft stuff
that said it had it too.
2) The Mackie has channel flip. I don't see one on the Ghost. Does the
Ghost accomplish this in a different way?
3) Plugging in headphones to the front phone jack disconects the
speakers. Can I change this?
4) Will buying this finally make me happy and content? I thought buying
the new DAT would, as I thought the same of all the other peices of gear
in my studio, but still....... maybe this time.
Mike Rivers
In article <19961114190...@ladder01.news.aol.com> awe...@aol.com writes:
> Ghost has the phase switch and 48V switch on every mic-pre.
Say, Alex -
How are you supposed to reach that Phantom power switch with the meter
bridge fitted to the console? Some of us don't like to power our
dynamic mics. (and don't tell me there's nothing wrong with it - it's
a precaution, not a "makes-it-better") Otherwise, I think it's a cool
console, and I'm a Soundcraft user myself.
For those of you who haven't taken a close look, it's all the way to
the back edge of the top surface. If the meter bridge is installed,
the switch is behind it.
------------
I'm really mri...@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) On the road.
Somewhere east of Lost Angeles and west of the moon
Greg House
Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in article <znr848028526k@trad>...
> How are you supposed to reach that Phantom power switch with the meter
> bridge fitted to the console?
> For those of you who haven't taken a close look, it's all the way to
> the back edge of the top surface. If the meter bridge is installed,
> the switch is behind it.
Mackie's just as bad, you just get less of the tiny switches you can't
find. They have one switch for each 8, and it's buried back in the input
connectors, which you can't see from the front with the meter bridge
installed. You just have to stick your hand over the meter bridge and
grope around until you feel it.
Greg
awe...@aol.com
In article <56gcke$o...@camel0.mindspring.com>, Billy Hume
<hu...@mindspring.com> writes:
> have been out and listened to both boards these past few days, tho I
>can't find a place here in Atlanta where they are in the same room. I am
>leaning towards the Ghost against the collective push towards the
>Mackie. But I was wondering a couple of things:
>
>1) What is 'VLZ'? Mackie has it. I thought I saw some Soundcraft stuff
>that said it had it too.
This is an acronymn (sp?) for Very Low Impedance, which gives you better
noise figures... I don't know who invented the technology but Soundcraft
has been using it since Delta came out (1990). I will give Mackie credit
for inventing the acronymn and making a great marketing campaign around
it.
>2) The Mackie has channel flip. I don't see one on the Ghost. Does the
>Ghost accomplish this in a different way?
Soundcraft calls it Reverse, it swaps the tape return with the Mic/line
input
>3) Plugging in headphones to the front phone jack disconects the
>speakers. Can I change this?
Yes, the normalling of the Headphone Jack can be bypassed, you'll need to
use high impedance headphones (600 ohms is common). But why would you
want the monitors blairing when you go under the hood? (especially if you
like to work late when the neighbors are trying to sleep).
>4) Will buying this finally make me happy and content? I thought buying
>the new DAT would, as I thought the same of all the other peices of gear
>in my studio, but still....... maybe this time.
First, you must choose to find happiness and contentment where you are...
you will never find happiness in material posessions, for all things must
fade someday... But, having a Soundcraft certainly wouldn't hurt things
;-)
Good luck, with whatever you choose!
Alex Welti
Mike Rivers
In article <56gcke$o...@camel0.mindspring.com> hu...@mindspring.com writes:
> 1) What is 'VLZ'? Mackie has it. I thought I saw some Soundcraft stuff
> that said it had it too.
To a Mackoid, it stands for "very low impedance", and it's their
summing bus architecture. The impedance of the summing points (where
the channels come together to either the main L/R bus or submasters)
is a lower impedance than it was on their previous design. Mostly the
term is for advertising purposes (got you to bite, didn't it? <G>),
but it's a way of reducing internal noise. Nothing particularly great
about it, just a good way to build a mixer.
> 2) The Mackie has channel flip. I don't see one on the Ghost. Does the
> Ghost accomplish this in a different way?
Alex or a Ghost pilot can probably point you to the knob that does it.
In any multitrack recording console (and, no, a 1604 isn't one so it's
not like this), there's a section of the board that's dedicated to
mixing the returns from the multitrack recorder and sending that mix
to the main L/R bus.
In the traditional "split" design, this is actually a separate set of
level and pan controls with maybe some sends and EQs, located on it's
own section of the console real estate. You use these controls while
you're tracking so you can always hear what you've recorded, while the
main faders control what's coming into the console and going out to
tape. Then when you get ready to mix, you send the tape returns,
generally by a button on each channel fader, to the main section of
the console where you have full EQ, more sends, and a large fader.
The tape returns are then freed up for more effect returns or "virtual
tracks" from synthesizers if you need them.
An in-line console design (which is what the Mackie and Ghost consoles
are) has the monitor section embedded in the channel strips. It takes
up less panel space, and, since every channel (generally) has a
monitor section associated with it, you can expand to monitoring as
many tracks as you have input channels. On my older split design
Soundcraft 600, for instance, there are only 16 monitor returns, so
going to 24 tracks requires some kludging, compromises, or an outboard
mixer.
What the "flip" button does is swap the function of the monitor level
controls and main faders so that you can use the little knob or fader
to control the level going to tape and use the main fader for your
monitor mix. The advantage of this is that you can start working on
your mix with the real faders and EQs while you're tracking.
> 3) Plugging in headphones to the front phone jack disconects the
> speakers. Can I change this?
Probably. Depends, too, on where the speakers are connected. Most
people consider this to be a convenience since you don't want to hear
the control room monitors leaking into your headphones when you're
using the phones. If you want to use the phone jack to feed phones to
a musician in the studio while you're in the control room listening on
speakers, then you're cheating. You should have a separate headphone
amplifier for the studio
> 4) Will buying this finally make me happy and content?
I don't know about you, but it will certainly make your dealer happy
and content. At least it's getting you closer to having a full studio
setup. A recorder without a mixer limits the kind of work you can do.
Mike Manthei
awe...@aol.com wrote:
> O.K. I'm finished blowing my horn. Really, go see the Ghost and put
> it side by side with the competition! ;-)
What is it's competition? In other words - you seem to imply the
Mackie is competion to the Ghost. Are they the same price? How do I
get information on the layout of the console?
Mike
Mike Manthei
> 4) Will buying this finally make me happy and content? I thought buying
> the new DAT would, as I thought the same of all the other peices of gear
> in my studio, but still....... maybe this time.
>
Billy,
We must be suffering from the same ailment. I am thinking of starting a support group for
musicians/artists/engineers (and anyone) with that same nagging question.
In fun
Mike
Billy Hume
>We must be suffering from the same ailment. I am thinking of starting a >support group for
>musicians/artists/engineers (and anyone) with that same nagging question.
Yes, I would be able to refer many friends to a group like this. (just
kidding)
Actually I wanted to thank everyone for their input. It has helped me in
deciding. But just as I was ready to say "o.k. - I'll get the Ghost!" I
read a review that said the channel inserts on the Ghost are pre-eq. Now
why would they do that? I always go eq before compression and this will
not be possible, unless someone out there can tell me a way around this.
Any input is welcome
Billy Hume - The Zone
awe...@aol.com
In article <znr848028526k@trad>, mri...@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) writes:
>How are you supposed to reach that Phantom power switch with the meter
>bridge fitted to the console? Some of us don't like to power our
>dynamic mics. (and don't tell me there's nothing wrong with it - it's
>a precaution, not a "makes-it-better") Otherwise, I think it's a cool
>console, and I'm a Soundcraft user myself.
>
>For those of you who haven't taken a close look, it's all the way to
>the back edge of the top surface. If the meter bridge is installed,
>the switch is behind it.
I don't deny it... If you read the reviews (pro audio review nov. 96 for
one) you'll find that you're not alone in that opinion. I also had a beef
with that, but the manufacturing guys told me it was put there on
purpose... mainly, the switch is on a PCB with the connectors (separate
from the main audio input PCB) the idea allowed them to keep the 48 volts
off the audio PCB's alltogether, any bleed through the DC blocking caps
runs through a resistor straight to the chassis not through the circuit
board and the ground buss. Well, I don't don't know what (if anything)
that buys you but there it is.
But HEY, if we're talking Ghost vs. mackie... Isn't mackies 48V switch in
the back as well? And the last I checked they only give you one switch
per eight inputs... Has that changed?
At any rate, it hasn't stopped anyone from working with the desk.
BTW, if anyone is interested in the reviews we are reposting them (with
permission from the authors) at www.soundcraft.com
And another thing, way back when Ghost was being concieved... It was not
planned to be in direct competition with Mackie... It was aimed at the
gap in the market just above Mackie and below the full sized recording
consoles. We see a need there, High end studios want a good economical
desk for their off-line and pre-production rooms. And, serious home /
budget studios want a big-desk sound without the big-desk $$$. I perfer
to think of the Ghost as something a Mackie user would want to upgrade to.
There is still a small but real difference in the price, I don't think we
are about to slash prices to go into direct competition with Mackie (If
anything, there could be a "cost of living" increase on the way
-hint-hint-)
Hence my comment in the original message "there's no competition" is not
just another bad cliche'. (ok, it is a bad cliche', but I'm a techno
geek, not a writer);-)
You're Pal
BigAl
:-)
awe...@aol.com
In article <328D6B...@mail.dec.com>, Mike Manthei
<man...@mail.dec.com> writes:
>> Really, go see the Ghost and put
>> it side by side with the competition! ;-)
>
>What is it's competition? In other words - you seem to imply the
>Mackie is competion to the Ghost. Are they the same price?
Well, Actually the Ghost is intended to satisfy a gap in the market, above
the mackie and below the traditional full sized recording desks. So it is
not in direct competition to the Mackie, it might be what a mackie user
would want to upgrade to. It is however, close in price (Ghost list is
only a few hundred more than mackie list). So a lot of people are
comparing them, and people who started off to the store to buy mackies
have spent a little extra and come back with the Ghost instead.
>How do I get information on the layout of the console?
Well, you can get a good deal of information from www.soundcraft.com and
you can request a brouchere be sent to you directly from the web page...
Or, I can have it sent out from this end... need an address though...
Good luck with your endeavours,
Alex Welti
Mike Rivers
In article <19961117051...@ladder01.news.aol.com> awe...@aol.com writes:
> But HEY, if we're talking Ghost vs. mackie... Isn't mackies 48V switch in
> the back as well? And the last I checked they only give you one switch
> per eight inputs... Has that changed?
That's correct, and I don't like Mackie's arrangement any better.
> I perfer
> to think of the Ghost as something a Mackie user would want to upgrade to.
That sounds like wishful thinking to me. I suspect that someone who
has chosen a Mackie 8-bus, either before or after the Ghost came on
the market, would probably bypass the Ghost on his next upgrade if he
finds a need to upgrade at all - probably to either a serious large
format console or a mostly-digital console like the Yamaha 02R. Now
if you're talking about a user who has a 1604 and is thinking of
upgrading, that's a different story. His first inclination might be
to go with the Mackie 8-bus because of it's reputation and good
performace from his present Mackie, but he might also be swayed into
spending a bit more when he considers some of the added features of
the Ghost.
There are plenty of tradeoffs to consider. Sonically the Ghost may
well be superior to the Mackie. But automation is pretty high on a
lot of users' lust lists whether they really need it or not. Rick
Vartian, the godfather of Mackie's automation systems, insisted (a
little too vhemently, which is why he's not around any more) that
automation was essential for making a good contermporary mix.
Presently, Mackie offers a better automation package than the Ghost
(though, admittedly, the Mackie Ultramix can be fitted to any console,
including the Ghost). On the other hand, if snapshot automation is
all that the user forsees needing, the Ghost has it built in. This is
just one consideration.
So, it's not a matter of competetion. I concur that the Ghost fills a
gap. Now all you need is enough customers who realize that they fall
into that gap.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)
awe...@aol.com
In article <56ln78$9...@camel1.mindspring.com>, Billy Hume
<hu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>read a review that said the channel inserts on the Ghost are pre-eq. Now
>why would they do that?
Well, it's a case of you can't please everyone, but at least we try to
please the majority... The logic behind it was to let you get the
cleanest possible signal from the insert send so the most direct route was
taken.
>I always go eq before compression
I don't think it really matters which comes first if you are using the
compressor as an effect. But, I would have thought you'd want to do the
opposite... If the point of compression is to tame the signal of an
enthusiastic performer who gets louder as the song progresses, or to get
the quiet passages of an acoustic signal as high above the noise floor as
possible, you'd want this ahead of the EQ to ensure the EQ circuit has
plenty headroom for any tweak you want to make.
But then again, if you are recording today's alternative music, you can
get away with anything you want (in the name of artistic creativity) and
it will still sound the way you intended ;-)
I hope this helps...
Alex Welti
www.soundcraft.com
awe...@aol.com
The Unofficial Smilie Dictionary
--------------------------------
:-) Your basic smilie. This smilie is used to inflect a
sarcastic or joking statement since we can't hear
voice inflection over UNIX.
;-) Winky smilie. User just made a flirtatious and/or
sarcastic remark. More of a "don't hit me for
what I just said" smilie.
:-( Frowning smilie. User did not like that last
statement or is upset or depressed about something.
:-I Indifferent smilie. Better than a Frowning smilie
but not quite as good as a happy smilie
:-> User just made a really biting sarcastic remark.
Worse than a :-).
>:-> User just made a really devilish remark.
>;-> Winky and devil combined. A very lewd remark
was just made.
Those are the basic ones...Here are some somewhat
less common ones:
(-: User is left handed
%-) User has been staring at a green screen for
15 hours straight
:*) User is drunk
[:] User is a robot
8-) User is wearing sunglasses
B:-) Sunglasses on head
::-) User wears normal glasses
B-) User wears horn-rimmed glasses
8:-) User is a little girl
:-)-8 User is a Big girl
:-{) User has a mustache
:-{} User wears lipstick
{:-) User wears a toupee
}:-( Toupee in an updraft
:-[ User is a Vampire
:-E Bucktoothed vampire
:-F Bucktoothed vampire with one tooth missing
:-7 User just made a wry statement
:-* User just ate something sour
:-)~ User drools
:-~) User has a cold
:'-( User is crying
:'-) User is so happy, s/he is crying
:-@ User is screaming
:-# User wears braces
:^) User has a broken nose
:v) User has a broken nose, but it's the other way
:_) User's nose is sliding off of his face
:<) User is from an Ivy League School
:-& User is tongue tied.
=:-) User is a hosehead
-:-) User is a punk rocker
-:-( (real punk rockers don't smile)
:=) User has two noses
+-:-) User is the Pope or holds some other religious office
`:-) User shaved one of his eyebrows off this morning
,:-) Same thing...other side
|-I User is asleep
|-O User is yawning/snoring
:-Q User is a smoker
:-? User smokes a pipe
O-) Megaton Man On Patrol! (or else, user is a scuba diver)
O :-) User is an angel (at heart, at least)
:-P Nyahhhh!
:-S User just made an incoherent statement
:-D User is laughing (at you!)
:-X User's lips are sealed
:-C User is really bummed
<|-) User is Chinese
<|-( User is Chinese and doesn't like these kind of jokes
:-/ User is skeptical
C=:-) User is a chef
@= User is pro-nuclear war
*<:-) User is wearing a Santa Claus Hat
:-o Uh oh!
(8-o It's Mr. Bill!
*:o) And Bozo the Clown!
3:] Pet smilie
3:[ Mean Pet smilie
d8= Your pet beaver is wearing goggles and a hard hat.
E-:-) User is a Ham radio operator
:-9 User is licking his/her lips
%-6 User is braindead
[:-) User is wearing a walkman
(:I User is an egghead
<:-I User is a dunce
K:P User is a little kid with a propeller beenie
@:-) User is wearing a turban
:-0 No Yelling! (Quiet Lab)
:-: Mutant Smilie
The invisible smilie
.-) User only has one eye
,-) Ditto...but he's winking
X-( User just died
8 :-) User is a wizard
C=}>;*{)) Mega-Smilie... A drunk, devilish chef with
a toupee in an updraft, a mustache, and a
double chin
Note: A lot of these can be typed without noses to
make midget smilies.
:) Midget smilie
:] Gleep...a friendly midget smilie who will gladly
be your friend
=) Variation on a theme...
:} What should we call these? (what?)
:) Happy
:> what?
:@ what?
:D Laughter
:I Hmmm...
:( Sad
:[ Real Downer
:< what?
:{ what?
:O Yelling
:C what?
:Q what?
:,( Crying
[] Hugs and
:* Kisses
|I Asleep
|^o Snoring
:-` smiley spitting out its chewing tobacco
:-1 smiley bland face
:-! "
:-@ smiley face screaming
:-#| smiley face with bushy mustache
:-$ smiley face with it's mouth wired shut
:-% smiley banker
:-6 smiley after eating something sour
:^) smiley with pointy nose (righty)
:-7 smiley after a wry statement
8-) smiley swimmer
:-* smiley after eating something bitter
:-& smiley which is tongue-tied
:-0 smiley orator
smiley invisible man
(:-( unsmiley frowning
(:-) smiley big-face
):-) "
):-( unsmiley big-face
)8-) scuba smiley big-face
=:-) smiley punk-rocker
=:-( (real punk rockers don't smile)
+:-) smiley priest
:-q smiley trying to touch its tongue to its nose
:-e disappointed smiley
:-t cross smiley
:-i semi-smiley
:-o smiley singing national anthem
:-p smiley sticking its tongue out (at you!)
:-[ un-smiley blockhead
:-] smiley blockhead
:-{ smiley variation on a theme
:-} ditto
{:-) smiley with its hair parted in the middle
}:-) above in an updraft
:-a lefty smilely touching tongue to nose
:-s smiley after a BIZARRE comment
:-d lefty smiley razzing you
g-) smiley with ponce-nez glasses
:-j left smiling smilely
:-k beats me, looks like something, tho.
:-l y. a. s.
:-: mutant smiley
:-\ undecided smiley
:-| "have an ordinary day" smiley
;-) winking smiley
:-< real sad smiley
:-> y.a.s.
:-z y.a.c.s.
:-x "my lips are sealed" smiley
:-c bummed out smiley
:-v talking head smiley
:v) left-pointing nose smiley
:-b left-pointing tongue smiley
:-/ lefty undecided smiley
:-? smilely smoking a pipe
.-] one-eyed smilely
,-} wry and winking
0-) smiley cyclops (scuba diver?)
:-=) older smiley with mustache
:u) smiley with funny-looking left nose
:n) smiley with funny-looking right nose
:< midget unsmiley
:> midget smiley
}:^#}) mega-smiley: updrafted bushy-mustached pointy nosed smiley with
a double-chin
:-) ha ha
~~:-( net.flame
|-) hee hee
O |-) net.religion
|-D ho ho
:-> hey hey
8 :-I net.unix-wizards
:-( boo hoo
X-( net.suicide
:-I hmm
E-:-I net.ham-radio
:-O uh oh
>:-I net.startrek
:-P nyah nyah
3:o[ net.pets
|-P yuk
:-} beard
:-{ mustache
:-# braces
:-X bow tie
:-Q smoker
<:I dunce
(:I egghead
@:I turban
8-) glasses
B-) horn-rims
8:-) glasses on forehead
:-8( condescending stare
;-) wink
>:-< mad
Drama :-( Comedy :-)
Surpise :-o Suspense 8-|
Male :- Female >-
Birth |-O Death 8-#
Infinity 8
---<--{(@ Its a Rose!
rkri...@aol.com
mcsq...@geocities.com (Sam Bennett) wrote:
>Every
>mixing board that comes out is instantly compared to it's >Mackie
>equivalent... It's incredible how many mackie knock-offs >the market
>has been flooded with! Personally, that fact alone is >enough to make
>me want to go with the Mackie.
Is that what the Ghost is, a Mackie knockoff? I'd be very surprised if it
didn't sound alot better, given Soundcraft's history. Anyone comment on
the sound?
Rick Krizman
KrizManic Music,
Venice, CA
awe...@aol.com
In article <19961118063...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
rkri...@aol.com writes:
Read the Ghost Review in Pro Audio Review Nov. 96... They are not
comparing it to a Mackie, but rather a Series 3200 and an SSL :-) [OK an
SSL it is not, what do you expect for under $6K? But previously this
level of sound quality was at least $20K] I'd like to see some post from
non-biased people who have had a chance to listen to both the Mackie and
Ghost.
Still,
Alex Welti
www.soundcraft.com
Tony Berke
awe...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <56ln78$9...@camel1.mindspring.com>, Billy Hume
> <hu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> >read a review that said the channel inserts on the Ghost are pre-eq. Now
> >why would they do that?
>
> Well, it's a case of you can't please everyone, but at least we try to
> please the majority... The logic behind it was to let you get the
> cleanest possible signal from the insert send so the most direct route was
> taken.
>
> >I always go eq before compression
>
> I don't think it really matters which comes first if you are using the
> compressor as an effect. But, I would have thought you'd want to do the
> opposite...
Uh, it sure does matter! The compression will behave quite differently
if it is fed a pre- or post-eq signal... think about it; you set the
threshold to some value... if you feed the compressor the post-eq
signal, the degree to which the compressor kicks in will be very
different if the signal has a boost or a cut in some band which contains
significant energy. Clearly this is often exactly what you want if
you're using the send to feed the compressor's sidechain insert
(de-essing a vocal, de-booming an acoustic guitar, etc.)
< snip >
> I hope this helps...
>
> Alex Welti
> www.soundcraft.com
--
Happy Listening!
Tony Berke
Perkins Hill Engineering
gar...@aol.com
In article <19961118040...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
awe...@aol.com writes:
>I don't think it really matters which comes first if you are using the
>compressor as an effect. But, I would have thought you'd want to do the
>opposite... If the point of compression is to tame the signal of an
>enthusiastic performer who gets louder as the song progresses, or to get
>the quiet passages of an acoustic signal as high above the noise floor as
>possible, you'd want this ahead of the EQ to ensure the EQ circuit has
>plenty headroom for any tweak you want to make.
Alex,
Although I understand the point about headroom I have often found that
putting the compressor post eq helps to smooth out any little resonances
and spiky peaks. I dont know the electronic theory behind it but
subjectively I like the sound of it.
Garth
gar...@aol.com
As far as I know the Mackie inserts are pre eq as well. I know thats
considered the way to go but I must confess I prefer it the other way
around. I think the Mackie can be modified and has directions to do so in
the manual.
Garth
rkri...@aol.com
mcsq...@geocities.com (Sam Bennett) wrote:
>>I'd like to see some post from
>>non-biased people who have had a chance to listen to >>both the Mackie
and
>>Ghost.
>But to the man on the street, that's the guage. "Is it >better than a
>Mackie 32:8?"
Who cares about the man on the street? If that's your criteria, why not
just see which sells more and conclude that that's the best console. Why
even have any kind of informed discussion? Hey, we've had about a million
posts about the location of those little switches--anybody ever LISTEN to
this stuff?
gar...@aol.com
I would say that every company has built on someone else's work to some
extent. Everyone is an "imitator". So all that matters is the relative
quality and price of each unit.
Garth
Matt Allison
In <19961119073...@ladder01.news.aol.com> rkri...@aol.com
writes:
>Why even have any kind of informed discussion? Hey, we've had about a
>million posts about the location of those little switches--anybody
>ever LISTEN to this stuff?
I'm buying a Ghost next month, so I'll be happy to share my
observations on the differences between the Mackie sonically.
Although something tells me it won't even be a contest...
scotf...@aol.com
Apparently nobody here is concerned about the fact that both boards place
the mid EQ controls above the hi & low controls, when everybody who mixes
for a living knows that the mids are really between the highs & lows. This
is extremely counter-intuitive & yet another indication (among many) that
these desks are designed by accountants. Yeah I know the argument that
splitting the EQ means being able to EQ the tape returns, therefore twice
as many "real" inputs when mixing. This just shows me that the
manufacturers think so little of their equalizers that they know you'll
have to use outboard EQ to do serious work.
SF
awe...@aol.com
Well, a Ghost with post EQ insert... I looked into it and found out that
it is a very simple modification for those who wish to undertake it... The
modules can be removed through the bottom of the console. On the input
PCB:
1. Lift the leg of R41 closest to the top (knobs) edge of the PCB (R41 is
next to the line switch).
2. Lift the "-" leg of C29 (C29 is also next to the line switch)
3. Jumper the hole left by R41 to the hole left by C29
That has removed the insert point from the circuit... now, lets put it
back in... post EQ!
4. Remove LK200 (this is a .75" wire link about 4.25 inches from the rear
edge near the bottom edge).
5. Connect a jumper from lifted leg of R41 to the top hole left by the
"missing-link" (closest to the knobs).
6. Connect a jumper from the lifted leg of C29 to the bottom hole left by
the "missing-link".
THAT'S IT!!!
NOTE ON WARRANTY... This will not void the warranty, however, if
something happens and we find out that the PCB was butchered or the mod
wasn't done properly... Well... that won't be covered. So if you're in
doubt about it... don't do it... You can have us do it, or a warrnaty
station or even a qualified independent tech of your choice, but be
prepared to pay... I could do 32 channels in about six hours... And
hourly rates vary from tech to tech from about $50 to $100/hr...
Let me know if these sorts of posts are useful... I'll try to keep it
up...
Alex Welti (not mike rivers)
awe...@aol.com
In article <329048...@Perkins-Hill.com>, Tony Berke
<Tony...@Perkins-Hill.com> writes:
>awe...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <56ln78$9...@camel1.mindspring.com>, Billy Hume
>> <hu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>
>> >read a review that said the channel inserts on the Ghost are pre-eq.
Now
>> >why would they do that?
>>
>> Well, it's a case of you can't please everyone, but at least we try to
>> please the majority... The logic behind it was to let you get the
>> cleanest possible signal from the insert send so the most direct route
was
>> taken.
>>
>> >I always go eq before compression
>>
>> I don't think it really matters which comes first if you are using the
>> compressor as an effect. But, I would have thought you'd want to do
the
>> opposite...
>
>Uh, it sure does matter! The compression will behave quite differently
>if it is fed a pre- or post-eq signal... think about it; you set the
>threshold to some value... if you feed the compressor the post-eq
>signal, the degree to which the compressor kicks in will be very
>different if the signal has a boost or a cut in some band which contains
>significant energy. Clearly this is often exactly what you want if
>you're using the send to feed the compressor's sidechain insert
>(de-essing a vocal, de-booming an acoustic guitar, etc.)
Ahhh, yes, of course you are right about that... Now let's think this
through. If you are going to EQ a signal to fed a sidechain, chances are
you are not interested in mixing the sidechain signal back into the song
(your interested in the original signal that the EQ is working on). In
which case you want to take the EQ out of the signal path alltogether, and
only put it in the sidechain path. Do you see that using an insert would
work, but since you are not going to return the sidechain signal any ways,
you can use the direct output instead (which is post EQ on the ghost).
Now on something like a Neve or a Series 3200 of cousre, you can press a
button that takes the EQ (or a part of it) out of the signal path and puts
it into the sidechain.
But I haven't seen that feature on a >$10K console yet, have you?
There it is!
Alex Welti
Mark Ochse
>But to the man on the street, that's the guage. "Is it better than a
>Mackie 32:8?"
>Nope. It has some features in common with the Mackie 8*bus.
Yep, a Rolls Royce has a lot in common with a Toyota, like four wheels, an
engine etc.
I'm not saying that the Soundcraft is a Rolls but show me a desk that
doesn't have anything in common with another desk and for heavens sake,
which man in which street. Anybody wanting to buy either of these desks is
not an"average man in the street". He is either a very rich hobbyist or a
professional and ought to know Mackie did not descend from on high. A desk
is as good as it is, not as good as it's marketing campaign (good though it
may be).
gar...@aol.com
In article <19961119202...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
scotf...@aol.com writes:
>Apparently nobody here is concerned about the fact that both boards place
>the mid EQ controls above the hi & low controls, when everybody who mixes
>for a living knows that the mids are really between the highs & lows.
This
>is extremely counter-intuitive
This is a good point. It is counter-intuitive and confusing for novices
and clients who want to help mix their tracks (no wait, maybe it is a good
idea). For what its worth, I wish manufacturers would lay it out highs on
top, mids in the middle and lows on the bottom.
Garth
awe...@aol.com
Making the Ghost insert POST EQ
Billy,
Here it is... On the input PCB:
1. Lift the leg of R41 closest to the top (knobs) edge of the PCB (R41 is
next to the line switch).
2. Lift the "-" leg of C29 (C29 is also next to the line switch)
3. Jumper the hole left by R41 to the hole left by C29
That has removed the insert point from the circuit...
Now we can put it back in almost anywhere you want:
POST EQ ON THE CHANNEL PATH.
4. Remove LK53 (this is a .75" wire link by the "EQ" switch).
5. Connect a jumper from lifted leg of R41 to the hole left by the
"missing-link" (closest to the "EQ" switch).
6. Connect a jumper from the lifted leg of C29 to the hole left by
the "missing-link" (closest to the "PRE" switch).
POST EQ ON THE TAPE RETURN
4. Remove LK200 (this is a .75" wire link about 4.25 inches from the rear
edge near the bottom edge).
5. Connect a jumper from lifted leg of R41 to the top hole left by the
"missing-link" (closest to the knobs).
6. Connect a jumper from the lifted leg of C29 to the bottom hole left by
the "missing-link".
Or, you can even have it FOLLOW THE "EQ TO B" so you can switch it between
the channel or the tape return, this can only be PRE EQ
4. Cut the trace leaving pin 2 of SW 6 (filters to MIX B switch), you can
locate pin 1 of the switch by the silk screen foot print which has a
notched corner (it's the pin closest to R20) pin 2 is the next one up.
5. Connect a jumper from lifted leg of R41 to pin 2 of SW 6.
6. Connect a jumper from the lifted leg of C29 to the trace on the other
side of the cut (you can follow the trace about an inch down to a solder
pad).
THAT'S IT!!!
NOTE ON WARRANTY... This will not void the warranty, however, if
something happens and we find out that the PCB was butchered or the mod
wasn't done properly... Well... that won't be covered. So if you're in
doubt about it... don't do it... You can have us do it, or a warrnaty
station or even a qualified independent tech of your choice, but be
prepared to pay... I could do 32 channels in about six hours... And
hourly rates vary from tech to tech from about $50 to $100/hr....
Stefan Gruhl
mri...@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) writes:
>finds a need to upgrade at all - probably to either a serious large
>format console or a mostly-digital console like the Yamaha 02R. Now
>There are plenty of tradeoffs to consider. Sonically the Ghost may
>well be superior to the Mackie. But automation is pretty high on a
So what to do, if I "just" want the best sound ?
My dealer stressed all the benefits of the Ghost for real 24 trak
analogue multitraking, and the good mic preamps.
I don' t need them. I just want good line level filters and a fat
sound. I don' t need inserts on each channel. A Bus will do it for me.
But will I get a SIGNIFICANTLY warmer,fatter EQ or can I grab a 02R
although I won't go for its features, but for its flexible EQ ?
Nobody seems to be able to tell me about them soundwise. I will
go and test all of them with a dat of my personal reference tunes
and a pair of phones. BUT, you just can't get the impession at
a store about what you will feel wit teh board within a mix session.
Feel free to compare the ghost soundwise to the overall capability of
a 02R. Why not include the every channel compressor into the ranking ?
thanks,
stefan
---
* real electronic composers don't like their music be restricted *
* to the physical limitations of the human hand - AH - a great list *
* Stefan Gruhl * sng...@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de *
*********************************************************************
gar...@aol.com
In article <19961120172...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
awe...@aol.com writes:
>OK point taken... why, is because of the "split" feature... If you're
>going to split the EQ at all, then you want the half that goes to the
>other path to have it's controlls together, otherwise you have to
remember
>that the top and bottom knobs are on the Tape return and all the middle
>knobs are on the channel path. I would say that's even more confusing,
>and putting the controlls together is the lesser of two evils.
Alex,
I understand your point. however, I would contend that most people would
rarely use the eq split feature.(I am surmising here and could be
mistaken) I've had a Mackie for a few years and have never used the split.
I would rather have it layed out the intuitive way for the 90% of the time
that I will be using the eq in the normal way and suffer through when I
use the split. This issue is not a deal breaker though. I've gotten used
to the Mackie layout although it is tough to explain to clients who want
to crank the treble (which they all do).
Garth
Jay Levin
In article <19961120075...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
gar...@aol.com wrote:
> This is a good point. It is counter-intuitive and confusing for novices
> and clients who want to help mix their tracks (no wait, maybe it is a good
> idea). For what its worth, I wish manufacturers would lay it out highs on
> top, mids in the middle and lows on the bottom.
Oh, get REAL. Just how long do you think that "novices" stay "confused"
about the placement of the EQ controls? Maybe five minutes...if they're
kind of slow. And clients who want to "help" will do more to sabotage
their own mix than any accountant-inspired EQ layout ever could.
It is counter-intuitive and for my own purposes I'd prefer them to be laid
out "in order" (since I rarely use the split function). But you get used
to it very quickly and it's not actually even distracting after the first
day or so of use.
I'll say it again: Compare Mackies to other mixers if you must, but
remember that most potential Mackie buyers will use their savings
elsewhere in their studio...better mics or better pres or better
compressors. For most such people, the value added by getting a
Soundcraft won't be more than the value added by additional gear.
My two,
JSL
awe...@aol.com
In article <19961120075...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
gar...@aol.com writes:
>>Apparently nobody here is concerned about the fact that both boards
place
>>the mid EQ controls above the hi & low controls, when everybody who
mixes
>>for a living knows that the mids are really between the highs & lows.
>This
>>is extremely counter-intuitive
>
>This is a good point. It is counter-intuitive and confusing for novices
>and clients who want to help mix their tracks (no wait, maybe it is a
good
>idea). For what its worth, I wish manufacturers would lay it out highs on
>top, mids in the middle and lows on the bottom.
>Garth
OK point taken... why, is because of the "split" feature... If you're
going to split the EQ at all, then you want the half that goes to the
other path to have it's controlls together, otherwise you have to remember
that the top and bottom knobs are on the Tape return and all the middle
knobs are on the channel path. I would say that's even more confusing,
and putting the controlls together is the lesser of two evils.
What alternatives are there? You could have two complete EQ circuits...
That would make the console a lot bigger and more expensive.
Or you can teach people what splitting the EQ if for and why it's like
that.
Or you can forget the split all together if it's not useful... Should we
put it to a vote?
Alex Welti
awe...@aol.com
In article <32924969...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
mcsq...@geocities.com (Sam Bennett) writes:
>
>
>>I don't think that anybody will argue that Mackie saw a niche that
opened
>>up with the ADAT (affordable, reasonably high quality), and went for it
>>with a zeal (and made quite a few bucks along the way). But to use it as
>>a support for the argument that the Ghost is a knock-off is extremely
>>weak. Hey, who invented the reel-to-reel recorder? Ampex? Sony? Or for
>>that matter, look at the DA-88 compared to the ADAT... no, on second
>>thought, let's not open that can o' worms.
>>
>Just for the record, I wasn't calling the Ghost a Mackie knock-off.
>They're a different layout, etc... They're different boards there's no
>doubt. I meant exactly what I said, there are *a lot* of Mackie
>knock-offs out there. The most copied boards being the 1202 and 1604.
>Look at Tascam, look at Behringer - look at Peavy (well, that's no big
>surprise).
>> : Every
>> : mixing board that comes out is instantly compared to it's Mackie
>> : equivalent...
>>
>>That's probably because Mackie has such a market lead.
>
>And that's exactly my point. Mackie has taken up so much of the market
>share that companies like Soundcraft had no choice but to change the
>way they approached the soundboard business. Thank you for making my
>point for me.
Correct me please if I am wrong... but I am certain the Souncraft Spirit
Studio was around for about a year before I ever knew Mackie existed at
all... What was a Spirit Studio?
Well, lets see...
mic/line input... tape send with grp/dir switching and a tape return on
every channel... input reverse... Splitable EQ... 8 floating busses...
in-line architecture...
No, Mackie didn't invent the wheel... but, they did have a cool Ad!
Marketing, my friends was Mackie's big gun!
BigAl
awe...@aol.com
If you've been following the "Mackie v. Soundcraft Ghost" thread in
rec.audio.pro the question was brought up as to why the EQ's are layed out
the way they are. Here's a snip of that conversation to get you up to
speed. I'd like to put it to a vote and find out how the majority thinks
it should be. I'll post the results in rec.audio.pro.
Thanks for taking a minute to respond,
Alex Welti
<begin:snip>
>>>scotf...@aol.com writes:
>>>
>>>Apparently nobody here is concerned about the fact that both boards
place
>>>the mid EQ controls above the hi & low controls, when everybody who
mixes
>>>for a living knows that the mids are really between the highs & lows.
This
>>>is extremely counter-intuitive
>>
>>awe...@aol.com writes:
>>
>>OK point taken... why, is because of the "split" feature... If you're
>>going to split the EQ at all, then you want the half that goes to the
>>other path to have it's controlls together, otherwise you have to
remember
>>that the top and bottom knobs are on the Tape return and all the middle
>>knobs are on the channel path. I would say that's even more confusing,
>>and putting the controlls together is the lesser of two evils.
>>
>>What alternatives are there? You could have two complete EQ circuits...
>>That would make the console a lot bigger and more expensive.
>>
>>Or you can teach people what splitting the EQ if for and why it's like
>>that.
>>
>>Or you can forget the split all together if it's not useful...
>
>gar...@aol.com writes:
>
>Alex,
>I understand your point. however, I would contend that most people would
>rarely use the eq split feature.(I am surmising here and could be
>mistaken) I've had a Mackie for a few years and have never used the
split.
>I would rather have it layed out the intuitive way for the 90% of the
time
>that I will be using the eq in the normal way and suffer through when I
>use the split. This issue is not a deal breaker though. I've gotten used
>to the Mackie layout although it is tough to explain to clients who want
>to crank the treble (which they all do).
>Garth
<end:snip>
Frank Vuotto
I've used a Mackie 8 buss but never a Ghost. The Mackie's lack of
headroom is to me it's biggest flaw. It feels like 15 volt rails and
always on the verge of overloading. What voltages are used in the Ghost?
Frank /~
@/
gary watts
So do these 2 boards, similiarily configured, price out the same?
It looked to me like the Ghost was more expensive by a couple grand
but this is just a flyby look.
Gary
Deron Daum
awe...@aol.com wrote in article
<19961120172...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> In article <19961120075...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> gar...@aol.com writes:
>
> >>Apparently nobody here is concerned about the fact that both boards
> place
> >>the mid EQ controls above the hi & low controls, when everybody who
> mixes
> >>for a living knows that the mids are really between the highs & lows.
> >This
> >>is extremely counter-intuitive
> >
> OK point taken... why, is because of the "split" feature... If you're
> going to split the EQ at all, then you want the half that goes to the
> other path to have it's controlls together, otherwise you have to
remember
> that the top and bottom knobs are on the Tape return and all the middle
> knobs are on the channel path. I would say that's even more confusing,
> and putting the controlls together is the lesser of two evils.
>
> What alternatives are there? You could have two complete EQ circuits...
> That would make the console a lot bigger and more expensive.
>
The Behringer has 4bands for the main bus and 2bands for the B bus and is
way less than the Mackie or Ghost.
Mike Rivers
In article <56v1sf$n...@rznews.rrze.uni-erlangen.de> sng...@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de writes:
> So what to do, if I "just" want the best sound ?
> My dealer stressed all the benefits of the Ghost for real 24 trak
> analogue multitraking, and the good mic preamps.
> I don' t need them. I just want good line level filters and a fat
> sound. I don' t need inserts on each channel. A Bus will do it for me.
They just don't make the mixer you need. You'll have to buy some
features that you don't need along with it. Sorry, but that's life.
Perhaps some of the new Orem line will get you closer to where you
want to be. Traditionally, the mixer has been the heart of a full
featured control room and to do so it has to have had mic preamp,
inserts, aux sends and returns, busses, and all the EQ the buyer can
afford. The concept of a "line only" mixer is relatively new, and so
far the only ones that are on the market are geared toward the home
MIDI studio or keyboard mixing, and "warmth" and "fat" just aren't in
their vocabulary.
> But will I get a SIGNIFICANTLY warmer,fatter EQ or can I grab a 02R
> although I won't go for its features, but for its flexible EQ ?
> Nobody seems to be able to tell me about them soundwise.
Well, that's because they're OK, pretty darn good actually, but one
man's fat is another man's distortion. It's easy to say that an API
is "wamer" or "fatter" than a Mackie, but it's hard to say if a
Soundcraft or a Yamaha or an 'experienced' Trident will give you the
sound you want. Nor will anyone tell you that it won't, if you turn
the knobs right. It's not quite a crapshoot, but it's not clear cut
either. No mixer will automatically give you a great sound, but once
you get over a certain hump, you can probably work with just about
anything you end up with.
> I will
> go and test all of them with a dat of my personal reference tunes
> and a pair of phones. BUT, you just can't get the impession at
> a store about what you will feel wit teh board within a mix session.
That's true. Rather than a DAT, can you bring in a multitrack tape to
mix? Most dealers will be able to set you up and leave you alone for
a few hours. It might mean taking a half a day off from work or
school so you're not competing with the Saturday afternoon guitar
thrashers, but actually trying to work with a mixer in a mixing
situation is a very revealing experience.
------------
I'm really mri...@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) On the road in Memphis
Ladies and gentlemen, Elvis HAS left the airport!
Mike Rivers
In article <19961120172...@ladder01.news.aol.com> awe...@aol.com writes:
> What alternatives are there? You could have two complete EQ circuits...
> That would make the console a lot bigger and more expensive.
>
> Or you can teach people what splitting the EQ if for and why it's like
> that.
>
> Or you can forget the split all together if it's not useful... Should we
> put it to a vote?
My vote is to forget splitting altogether because it's not very
useful. However the EQ should be assignable to either the channel or
the monitor path. Same with the low-cut filter, but make it
separately assignable.
If you're going to EQ to tape, you probably want all the control you
can get. Why would you want only half an EQ? And once the track
(EQ'd or not) is recorded, why would you want to leave half the EQ
behind on the channel when you could be playing with all the knobs
refining the monitor mix while the vocalist is doing the 64th overdub?
We used to EQ to tape to try to get the individual tracks sounding as
solid as possible. That was OK when working with 4 or 8 tracks, but
as we expand to more and more tracks in the mix, the trend is to only
EQ to the extent that's necessary to get rid of clearly unwanted crud
or improve signal-to-noise ratio, and leave the fine adjustments until
mixdown so we can hear what's happening when several tracks play
together.
So, who thought up this silly split EQ anyway? Someone indecisive
with poor work habits, no doubt.
And, BTW, I work on a Soundcraft 600, which is a split monitor design,
with full channel EQ and two bands on the monitor section, both firmly
in place.
awe...@aol.com
In article <57232c$l...@laplaza.org>, fvu...@laplaza.org (Frank Vuotto)
writes:
>I've used a Mackie 8 buss but never a Ghost. The Mackie's lack of
>headroom is to me it's biggest flaw. It feels like 15 volt rails and
>always on the verge of overloading. What voltages are used in the Ghost?
+/-17 Vdc.... and the internal operating level is set to -2dBm which adds
headroom. Not long ago I remember seeing some Mackie Ad that was hyping
the fact that the New 1604 was now doing the -2 thing for better
headroom... To me that implies that the older designs including eight buss
are set somewhere else. And I've seen more than a few post that mentioned
Mackie's lack of headroom
Alex Welti
awe...@aol.com
In article <572h2c$m...@hpcvsnz.cv.hp.com>, gwa...@cv.hp.com (gary watts)
writes:
>So do these 2 boards, similiarily configured, price out the same?
>It looked to me like the Ghost was more expensive by a couple grand
>but this is just a flyby look.
>
>
The Ghost LE (without the Mute automation, computer ect...) is about $350
more in the US if you're looking at suggested list price.. The standard
Ghost (with Mute auto ect...) is about $1200 more list.
Alex
Christian SEITZ
mri...@d-and-d.com,Unet1 wrote at 17:30 on 17.11.96=20
to rec.audio.pro about "Re: Mackie 32/8 vs Soundcraft Ghost".=20
=20
>> Mackie offers a better automation package than the Ghost=20
>> (though, admittedly, the Mackie Ultramix can be fitted to any=20
console,=20
>> including the Ghost). On the other hand, if snapshot automation is=20
>> all that the user forsees needing, the Ghost has it built in.=20
=20
=20
Hi Mike !=20
=20
Do not forget to mention that the Ghost can be ordered pre-wired for=20
the =20
Optifile DAX system which is better than the Ultramix ( which I know=20
very =20
well and which I like ), because it makes use of the physical on-board =20
faders. Being limited to 16 faders at once did annoy me very much with=20
the =20
Mackie automation !=20
The price of the Optifile DAX is less then $ 3000.-, so it is not much=20
more =20
expensive than the Ultramix !=20
=20
=20
Best regards,=20
=20
Christian SEITZ, Vienna=20
=20
=20
--- OffRoad 1.9f registered to Christian Seitz=20
Mark Ochse
<Oh please! Obviously the two boards are in direct competition...
Mackie has scared every company manufacturing 8 buss boards into
getting on the ball and putting more "bang for the buck" into their
designs. It's pretty safe to say that if Mackie wasn't around,
Soundcraft would never have even thought about making the Ghost what
it is, and certainly not for the price-level they're aiming at. Every
mixing board that comes out is instantly compared to it's Mackie
has been flooded with! Personally, that fact alone is enough to make
me want to go with the Mackie.>
Get real!!!! Soundcraft have been out there make leading edge technology
for decades, they made their name cramming more "bang for the buck" at top
class quality. Funny how Mackie worshippers (they display a zealotry
bordering on the religious) put their brains on hold when anybody dare
suggest that Mackie isn't No 1. Considering the fact that Mackie are the
new kid on the block and offer nothing essentially new, just well packaged,
good quality desks and a nifty marketing campaign, aren't they they ones
doing the knock-offs. Maybe only everybody else except Mackie do
knock-offs.
Jason K
Yes, I'd say it is. Especially in the EQ department...
Man on the Street
Mike Manthei
Matt Allison wrote:
> I'm buying a Ghost next month, so I'll be happy to share my
...
Hi Matt.
Where did you get your information before buying? Is there a web site
out there with information (track layout, etc) on this console?
awe...@aol.com
In article <19961121055...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
awe...@aol.com writes:
>
>If you've been following the "Mackie v. Soundcraft Ghost" thread in
>rec.audio.pro the question was brought up as to why the EQ's are layed
out
>the way they are. Here's a snip of that conversation to get you up to
>speed. I'd like to put it to a vote and find out how the majority thinks
>it should be. I'll post the results in rec.audio.pro.
>
>Thanks for taking a minute to respond,
>
>Alex Welti
Well, I guess this isn't as important as some might have thought as I have
only gotten three replies... Which so far lean towards getting rid of the
split EQ feature as it is not really useful anyhow. But, if this is the
consensus, I'll need more than three votes to sway R&D to change course...
Any more replies would be welcome...
Thanks,
Alex
awe...@aol.com
In article <3299F1...@bss.enet.dec.com>, Mike Manthei
<man...@bss.enet.dec.com> writes:
>Is there a web site
>out there with information
Mike Manthei
Jason K wrote:
>
> Yes, I'd say it is. Especially in the EQ department...
>
> Man on the Street
Jason,
What question did you answer?
Mike
Deb and possily someone else
Mark Ochse wrote:
> Get real!!!! Soundcraft have been out there make leading edge technology
> for decades, they made their name cramming more "bang for the buck" at top
> class quality.
Top class indeed, albeit at top dollar. Not really a "bang for the buck" approach.
> Funny how Mackie worshippers (they display a zealotry
> bordering on the religious) put their brains on hold when anybody dare
> suggest that Mackie isn't No 1.
The same is true of the myriad snobs who categorically dismiss anything made by
Mackie as the Pabst of audio gear (no offense to you Blue Ribbon drinkers!).
> Considering the fact that Mackie are the
> new kid on the block and offer nothing essentially new, just well packaged,
> good quality desks and a nifty marketing campaign, aren't they they ones
> doing the knock-offs. Maybe only everybody else except Mackie do
> knock-offs.
If you ask me (or even if you don't), first developing and then offering the quality
of gear they do, at the price point they do, *is* new and unprecedented. That, I
believe, was the original poster's point, and I agree with him. It's not their product
per se, just the value they offer, which is being copied by the likes of Soundcraft.
Incidentally, if you lived around Woodinville and knew the folks at Mackie, you'd
realise their marketing campaign is much more a reflection of the people who work
there than it is a contrived campaign. In any case, I agree: it is 'nifty.'
Two more pennies on the pile,
Greg
of Ubik
bass...@aol.com
fvu...@laplaza.org (Frank Vuotto) writes:
/* I've used a Mackie 8 buss but never a Ghost. The Mackie's lack of
headroom is to me it's biggest flaw. It feels like 15 volt rails and
always on the verge of overloading. What voltages are used in the Ghost?
*/
Sounds like you have a gain structure problem.
-andy peters
Evan J. Chronister
Deb and possily someone else <ub...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>If you ask me (or even if you don't), first developing and then offering the quality
>of gear they do, at the price point they do, *is* new and unprecedented. That, I
>believe, was the original poster's point, and I agree with him. It's not their product
>per se, just the value they offer, which is being copied by the likes of Soundcraft.
>Two more pennies on the pile,
>Greg
>of Ubik
Well said. It all comes down to "return on investment". My 1604 has
paid for itself many times over. About 3-4 times more than a
Soundcraft would have at the same revenue. It doesn't take a rocket
scientist (or a PhD in finance for that matter) to figure out the best
investment. Two more cents... Evan of Redmond
fre...@netcom.com
I own a Mackie 24/8 and I'm basically happy with it considering what I paid,
(I bought it used but like new for $1900). I recently cruised to the local
shop and checked out the Ghost. The EQ is quite nice, I prefer it to my
board. The main thing though was the transparency was noticeably better.
Yeah, I know, the mackie boards are 'quiet' but not as transparent as this
board IMHO. There is a tendency of all boards in these price ranges to
'smear' the sound going through them, compared to less smear effect in higher
priced consoles. To me, the question is, not how minimal is the effect,
but how pleasing is it? My Mackie has a more pleasing effect than my
Tascam M520 in regards to this. Perhaps 'SMEAR' is not the best way to
describe what I mean, but it's the best way I can think of. The Sonic
Signature of the Ghost is more pleasing to my ear. I still like my Mackie,
but I am glad there are others,(and as a previous poster pointed out,
SOUNDCRAFT has always been a leader in this dept.) that are constantly
attempting to redefine the capabilities and sound qualities of inexpensive
boards.
Fretwiz
fre...@netcom.com
Just one point to contend:
Greg Mackie is not a new kid on the block of building inexpensive mixing
products.
Mike Manthei
...tried that already. Did you try it????? Here's what I get:
DNS name lookup failure
The system returned:
Name Server for domain 'www.soundcraft.com' is unavailable.$end
This means that:
The named host probably does not exist.
Scott Dorsey
... yes, but that Tapco stuff is not something to be particularly proud of.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
bu...@aol.com
So true so true and neither imho is the mackie line.
all the Mackie bells and whistles do not make for a clean and accurate
signal path. I'll still gladly keep my 6 year old Hill Multimix which the
Mackie 1604 is a bad copy of...
TAPCO the mixer with the pots that Froze shut.
American mixer designers have YET to ever make a console that can match or
even surpass British EQ
awe...@aol.com
In article <32A31A...@bss.enet.dec.com>, Mike Manthei
<man...@bss.enet.dec.com> writes:
> The named host probably does not exist.
>
>
It's DEFINATELY there... try agian!
I just went there again to make sure ;-)
Alex Welti @ Soundcraft USA
Jim Morgan
Mike Manthei <man...@bss.enet.dec.com> wrote:
>awe...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <3299F1...@bss.enet.dec.com>, Mike Manthei
>> <man...@bss.enet.dec.com> writes:
>>
>> >Is there a web site
>> >out there with information
>>
>> http://www.soundcraft.com
>...tried that already. Did you try it????? Here's what I get:
>DNS name lookup failure
>The system returned:
> Name Server for domain 'www.soundcraft.com' is unavailable.$end
>This means that:
> The named host probably does not exist.
try this http://www.spirit-by-soundcraft.co.uk
This may send you where you want to go/
sofa...@aol.com
please define british eq? are we talking neve, or soundcraft. bandwith or
componets. ive owned many "british" consoles, and i feel they all sounded
quite different, and think that "british eq" is nothing more than a
marketing ploy, or a band wagon to jump upon.
sofaking
Adrian Bartel
awe...@aol.com wrote:
>In article <32A31A...@bss.enet.dec.com>, Mike Manthei
><man...@bss.enet.dec.com> writes:
>> The named host probably does not exist.
>>
>>
>It's DEFINATELY there... try agian!
>http://www.soundcraft.com
>I just went there again to make sure ;-)
>Alex Welti @ Soundcraft USA
Well, there does seem to be a bit of a problem - our name server
couldn't find it either. It's not unusual for it to take a while for
all the name servers to get their information sorted out for a new
address, especially if something isn't set up quite right.
The simple solution if you're having difficulty is to use the IP
address the first time:
Name: www.soundcraft.com
Address: 194.207.28.199
So just access http://194.207.28.199/ and you'll get the page. When
you do that your local DNS will 'learn' the name and you'll then be
able to access the page as http://www.soundcraft.com/
Not the ideal situation, but it'll get you going.
Cheers
Adrian
--------------------------------------------------------------
"It does not do to leave a live dragon
out of your calculations." -- Tolkien
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hank Alrich
In article <19961204073...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
sofa...@aol.com wrote:
And after that we could all play with an API console with those 550A and
560 EQs and wait for someone to tell us that Americians can't build an EQ.
YMMV
hank
Del Winiecki
Yes, I noticed the same. Our Mackie here is good sounding, there is no
doubt, but the Ghost is more clear. Its not a huge difference, but is
audible. The Ghost was still a ghost when we bought the Mackie 24x8
though. Glad to see things are improving in the field.
Del Winiecki
WinSyst Productions
Will Russell
I just tried it and it works fine.
Will
Kurt Ballou
does anyone know if soundcraft makes a 16x8 version of the ghost and what i
should expect to pay for it? the way the 24x8 is laid out it looks like there
should be a 16, but i was told there isn't.
awe...@aol.com
There isn't one, there wasn't enough interest to jusify keeping those in
stock.
Alex
PendAudio
Who remembers fixing a TAPCO mixer in the mid 70's, which required
removing ALL the knobs (with set screws) and ALL the pot hardware and ALL
the jack hardware to pop the pc board out of the chassis. Who in his right
mind designs a product where the component side of the board is facing the
front panel?
Once bitten, twice shy.
awe...@aol.com
>Alex,
>I just received the "official" K2 literature direct from Soundcraft.
>I'm really impressed by this new board. It seems to have some of the
>best features of the K3 standard and the K3 theater with 4 extra stereo
>channels thrown in for good measure.
>
>Please keep me informed on availability dates of the K2 40X8, and if
>there are any changes from the preliminary prices you already quoted me.
>
Soundcraft K2, L/R/Ctr, 40 mono, 8 Ste, 4 band semi-parametric, sweepable
HPF, 8 grp, 8 Aux, 11x4 Mtx, Midi Mutes (8 mute groups plus 128 recallable
sceens)... The Group and Aux master sections can be individually swapped
for combined FOH or Monitor mixing.
The official introductory price is:
K2 40 $12995 list
K2 32 $10995
k2 24 $ 9295
It's on the way (so they say). We'll be able to ship in January...
Alex Welti
Mike Manthei
It looks like Soundcraft does make a 16x8 version.
Quoting a review from Sweetwater music:
The Ghost console comes in 16, 24 and 32 channel frames, all expandable
via a 24-channel module. Signal level indication is standard on each
channel, plus there's an optional meterbridge with 12-segment channel
meters and 20-segment left/right master meters for the precise metering.