Mackie succedes once again in reinventing it's self ...Just a few days ago, the Mackie website said the Onyx preamp is based on the XDR mic pre found in current Mackie consoles.. but now as I search for this blurb once again to quote here, it has been changed.

Based on the history of Mackies claims it's mic pres are comparable to world class pres and then falling short of this mark in the eyes of the audio community, I remain skeptical.

I think this may be once again, the repackaging and refinement of the same type of mic pre we have all come to have a love/hate relationship with. One thing for sure, Mackie remains consistant in their marketing approach.

I look forward to hearing the Onyx pres but I have reservations that they will be a significant improvment over the pres currently found in Mackie products.

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
Mackie succedes once again in reinventing it's self ...Just a few days ago, the Mackie website said the Onyx preamp is based on the XDR mic pre found in current Mackie consoles.. but now as I search for this blurb once again to quote here, it has been changed.

Based on the history of Mackies claims it's mic pres are comparable to world class pres and then falling short of this mark in the eyes of the audio community, I remain skeptical.

I think this may be once again, the repackaging and refinement of the same type of mic pre we have all come to have a love/hate relationship with. One thing for sure, Mackie remains consistant in their marketing approach.

I look forward to hearing the Onyx pres but I have reservations that they will be a significant improvment over the pres currently found in Mackie products.

Actually, at this price range the pres are not important to me. Im interested in an affordable desk to mix down from my tape machine, so the eq, and I guess, summing quality would be far more important to me than the pres. I'm pretty much conviced from one of your previous posts that I wont be able to afford a desk with enough juice to handle tracking and monitoring at the same time, so for now I'll stick with outboard tracking gear, and save the desk for mixing/monitoring

Robert,
I think the priceing on the new ONYX series of mixers is going to be compareable to that of the 1604 / SR24 type boards and unles the "Cal Perkins" (???) EQ is considerably better than the present EQ Mackie offers, I wouldn't get my hopes too high. The main problem I have with Mackie EQ, is the lack of a bandwith or "Q" control on the midrange and judging from the images on the Mackie website it appears the ONYX still doesn't have them.

What kind of tape machine are you using Robert?

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
Robert,
I think the priceing on the new ONYX series of mixers is going to be compareable to that of the 1604 / SR24 type boards and unles the "Cal Perkins" (???) EQ is considerably better than the present EQ Mackie offers, I wouldn't get my hopes too high. The main problem I have with Mackie EQ, is the lack of a bandwith or "Q" control on the midrange and judging from the images on the Mackie website it appears the ONYX still doesn't have them.

What kind of tape machine are you using Robert?

Otari. The current Mackie eq is pretty unimpressive.

Spokewith Mackie today. What a letdown. They're hoping for 2nd Quarter, but expecting it to be more like 3rd or fourth Quarter 2004 before release!

Its always been my impression that the summing and EQ was the weakest part of the Mackies.I did a live gig with an 8 bus once and the crosstalk was horrendous as well as having to 'dime' the controls on the Q to get any change at all.For mixing from tape I would much rather have Soundcraft,Ramsa,Yamaha,or A&H....any day.

Originally posted by Davedog:
Its always been my impression that the summing and EQ was the weakest part of the Mackies.I did a live gig with an 8 bus once and the crosstalk was horrendous as well as having to 'dime' the controls on the Q to get any change at all.For mixing from tape I would much rather have Soundcraft,Ramsa,Yamaha,or A&H....any day.

The Ghost is certainly appealing, especially with the Mix B, and tape returns on every channel. I've heard you rave about it in some of your past posts. Still feeling the same? I also know you've mentioned using it with the HD24, which I've had in my cross hairs as a possible addition to my tape machine. Do you have any Mpegs you've done with this setup?

Thanks,
Robert

Looks like the Onyx mixer comparable to the 1604 will be running about $300 more. It'll be interesting to see what that $300 buys you.

Guess we'll find out next quarter (or third, or fourth)...

-Duardo

I not really anticipating the Onyx, but the Big Knob they made actaully looks quite useful considering I'm wasting space in my studio with a 1604Vlz thats just being used as a fader for my monitors and as a way to feed my furman headphone distributer.

I am very curious about the A/D and D/A converters on this board. 16 in and 2 out seem a hell lot of converters for 400$ to be good ones.
Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Karnaj:
I am very curious about the A/D and D/A converters on this board. 16 in and 2 out seem a hell lot of converters for 400$ to be good ones.
Any thoughts?

If you really cared about giving priority to sound quality you wouldn't be looking at the Mackie to start with. It is not meant to compete with the real good stuff despite how they may try to market it.

You're absolutely right. But the kind of projects I work on, don't really need anything better than Mackie. I just have to record live sound on PC and was thinking about whether buying the Onyx board or going with a different sound card

No problem with that. I know I would much prefer to have a real mixer that can also interface with a DAW rather than just a soundcard or one of the other interfaces that are fairly limited. The Mackie looks like a strong contender that could also be used as a straight mixer for other duty such as live/PA work as well.

went over to a friends pad yesterday. listened to old tracks all done on a Mackie vlz 32 track board into a few ADATS from 8 or so years ago, 16 bits mind you!....it was unbelievable! how many great records were recorded in the early 90's this way?

the gear addiction (mic pre wars) are so out of hand these days on all these internet forums, its become laughable...I'm sure the new mackies will sound just fine, but I'll bet they aren't cheap. knowing Mackie, that will never change!

Originally posted by AudioGaff:
If you really cared about giving priority to sound quality you wouldn't be looking at the Mackie to start with. It is not meant to compete with the real good stuff despite how they may try to market it. [/QB]

I think that's a damn stupid thing to say considering you havn't heard it yet.

Sheesh

Well that being said, Mackie has a reputation, thats why Audiograph said that, I deffinately agree with him. About the Mackie VLZ's, VLZ Pro, and SR boards I've never been impresed with any of them, they have that thin confused with transparent sound, I've heard hundreds of recordings with those, to Adats, Harddisk, tape and they always have that Mackie sound that I hate, dynamic mics sound like paper going through those pre's. Everytime Mackie says they have a new revolutionary pre its the same sound, with the same noisy pre's with no headroom.

Ok, they are not the best, but in many blind taste tests in Nashville, it has been proven that the average engineer could not discern an identifiable difference between the Mackie pre and other boutique pre's. When 80% of the modern manufacturers are using the same chip, go figure. It is the rest of the board that did it in with me. There is some funky phase stuff going on in the channel strip, even with the EQ bypassed.

Hey Brent! Doent really say a lot for the level of the 'average engineers' ears in Nashville....Anyway, it doesnt take a real scientist to hear the harsh edge and the lack of depth related to the Mackie pres.Its always been an issue with me and is the main reason I bought something else.Ghost.