Hi guys ! I have a question for those who may have used these consoles. Which one of these sound better? Soundcraft Ghost, Mackie 8-buss, Tascam M-2600MkII, or Allen and Heath GS-3000. I have the Tascam M-2600MkII and was wondering is it in the same "ballpark" as the other,since you rarely hear anything about the Tascam. Thanks for your time and ears!

save your money...those desks aren't worth a damn.



you'll thank me later.

All of those will be a major step down in quality compared to mixing ITB.


__________________
Robert Philbeck

WRO-onK !

save your money...those desks aren't worth a damn.



you'll thank me later.

Souncraft mod potntial not a factor ???

I agree. All those boards sound like ass on a platter.

The only "low end" board worth a damn, IMO, is the Midas Venice 16 channel.

-Chris Randall

Hey Chris,
I'm kind of looking into Midas Venice myself and was wondering is it really worth using this desk over summing boxes.
Is this board really considered a "low end" unit?

You can see the Midas as 'low end' cuz it's so inexpensive compared to it's sound and features. It's probably the best deal in the price category you're looking at.

I don't seem to understand some of the opinions on this board... one moment people rave about a board like the Ghost as the 'best under x,xxx$', and a moment later someone advises the exact opposite.



I can't start to describe the differences in feel between moving a fader and clicking your mouse.
Also, don't get me get started on EQ. I mean, the sonalksis stuff sounds ok, but again, tuning sounds is sooooo much easier when actually moving a pot.

Yeah, before someone shouts 'control surface' to me..I'll shout 'resale value' back to you.


All this just to say: I love my Ghost but I know a Venice sounds better, just didn't have them when I bought the ghost. I don't like the Mackie nor the Tascam, don't know the A&H


Herwig

I have the A&H GL2200 and it's not bad man. It's more fun mixing and I love the sends and aux's. I don't think it's a step down to sum on a A&H. The EQ and hardware stuff is more fun than the plug-in's.

well put, Slipperman.

You know what? You're absolutely right.

I've done several records on a Mackie 8-buss. One was recorded on a Mackie, and mixed in the K2 room at Battery in NYC, and it all worked out fine.

So, I retract my earlier statement. Having an 8-buss (or even 4-buss) console makes recording and mixing easier, there's no doubt about that. Outboard is much easier to deal with, and having a console in addition to the mixer in the DAW gives you that many more options for expressing yourself.

Sometimes it's hard to jump from the High End forum to this one, without qualifying your remarks! ;-)

As for the Venice question earlier, in light of the above statements, I think it's probably a good idea to rent one and try it out with your rig before making a purchase. It costs more than all of the above mixers. As I said, In My Opinion, it is the best of the low-end models, in sound, features, and build quality. However, you're going to give up some channels. You can get 32 channels of Mackie 8-buss for the price of 16 Midas.

Also, it is worth considering that the Midas console is slanted towards live sound (Midas makes FOH consoles, not recording consoles), and has EQ and routing that take that in to account, where as the others are definitely recording consoles. The EQ is pretty colorful, and the board has a definite "sound" to it. If you're used to a Midas FOH console, especially the H1K, H2K and H3K, you'll find that the Venice sounds very similar, with "full" low end, and a bit of attenuation in the highs, but in a nice way. I guess the word I'd use would be "smooth," as opposed to "meaty."

Chris Randall

And I just remembered one other thing. I think the Amek Big is a great board. I did one project in a Neve Capricorn room, and we had to add two songs to the album in a very short time frame. The only studio I could get time in here in Chicago for the days I needed had a Big console.

Approaching the situation with some trepidation, I used the same engineer on both the Capricorn and Big sessions. The two songs recorded on the Big to ADAT, and mastered to DAT via a Finalizer sound better to me 5 years later than the 8 that were recorded on the Capricorn to Sony 32 digital, and mastered to 1/2" via a Fairman.

Same personel, end to end, in all cases. So, whether I just like the songs better, or whatever, it is certainly possible to get products that compare favorably in any situation.

-Chris Randall

Mummy! The scary man made my brain explode!



Have you looked at Soundtracs desks? I use a Topaz Project 8 24ch for tracking, monitoring, etc though I don't mix down through it - Harvey Gerst uses the 32ch and gets great results.

A little difficult to find but worth the money I feel.

Cheers,
Rich

Hey guys, I like all of your answers up to now. I personally like the stuff that's recorded "ITB", but unfortunately I'm computer iliterate at the time! Just have gotten the"nerve" to start "talking" to you great people, but I'm getting better! So until I can get around "ITB" as I can on my Tascam M-2600MkII, I had better stay "Out Of The Box". But for what's it's worth, an Independant Label owner who owns a $25,000-$35,000 dollar D&R desk preferred the mix that came off my Tascam than the D&R.(YMMV) Thanks for your time and ears!

snatch. about those computers.
take a look at a amd 64 sometime with 512 ram and 2 fast hard drives. very fast. loads of tracks and plug ins.
take the plunge. its not all that scary. the key is a good sound card in the amd. whats even more exciting is the amd 64 laptops with fast hard drives starting to appear. thus overcoming the
traditional slowness of laptops. also try the software i use sometime. powertracks from pgmusic.com. does 48 tracks. 24 bit if you wish and only costs 49 bucks. just try the demo if your sceptical.
the pc really isnt that scary once you get into it.
just some ideas.

I've been using Soundcraft Ghost, Mackie 8-buss, and Allen and Heath GS-3000 and havent tried Tascam M-2600MkII (I worked with 2500 but its older and different).If you ask me ,they're all in same league - nothing spatial .They can route audio from point A to point B .They're sounding slightly different but they share one common thing : Same EQ setting on all 3 mixers makes mixes sounding much better . Set any freq and cut or boost few db .Now turn eq off. Repeat on all channels .Bored already ?
just leave 'em off then ,it sounds better that way in most cases .
I've heard some half-decent mixes with mackie and a&h but most of the channel processing has been done before board .I'd search for smth else as most ppl here already suggested
Good luck

Freudian slip?

heh u caught me

The biggest issue I have with mixing ITB is how short do you cut the tail on that mouse........

For the most part the Ghost sounds a bit more 'complete' than the others mentioned and it is an individual thing as to the process one goes about creating ones art....

Also, those supposedly crappy sounding (as opposed to what?)consoles are smaller budget versions of the large consoles we all love(API,Neve,Helios,) theres just not room in their footprint for the size of the components and power supplies which are the main factor for such great longlasting sound...

And lastly, trying to get a frozen computer to respond to commands in the middle of a session is a bit like exposing your ass to commuters on the subway....I always prefer the knobs...at least if it doesnt work you can repatch or kick it hard.....

I hear ya Sonic Dogg ! I agree 100%. Not that I have anything against "ITB",if you feel confortable this way,great! But I don't, as of yet (not to say I won't), but until I feel I'm compotent enough to give the clients a good product, I'll stay with the analog console. It's all about being able to use what you have anyway,right? What's the use of getting the latest technology if I don't know how to,or have confidence in using it! I guess for now my concern is to get the" best" equipment in the area I feel confortable in(that I can afford) and get to work, make some good recordings,and see what the future holds! Thanks for your time and ears!

Ya know, as much as I cringe at the thought of using a Mackie 8-buss to mix on, one of my favorite sounding albums (Failure--'Fantastic Planet') was mixed through that board. They did use a lot of outboard and probably hardly touched the EQ of the board, but it still amazes me that the album was mixed through it.

To me the 8-buss Mackies had some severe headroom problems once the channels start adding up, you have to be very careful with your levels and gain staging. I've found that the 1604 series to actually sound better than the 8-buss. In fact, if I were you, I would check out Mackies new Onyx series Here mixers. I have no experience with this Onyx and take most of Mackies great ad claims with a grain of salt, but for some reason I think this mixer might be a step up from the 8-buss in sonics and might even have a usable EQ (don't even touch the EQ on a 8-buss!). Might even be better than the older 1604's
(if you believe the ad claims).

With the Older 1604's Mackie made a summing thingy that allowed you to strap 2 1604's together for 32 channels. I don't know if they still make it, but you might be able to do the same with this new Onyx. It's worth a look in my opinion.



Fleaman