Macky O.N.Y.X. micpre

I did look under the hood, which is how I got the info I posted on the previous page.

The transistors used are considerably lower Rbb than 2N4401, and as I said the opamps are JRC's supercharged version of the NE5532 (double slew rate, lower noise). So M@ckie's claim, the O*nyx pres are better than their previous preamps is not total BS.

I did not trace the circuit, but yes, it looks like something Cohen-esque or (Super-)Greenish. There's no need to parallel transistors, though, as they're super low Rbb already.

So M@ckie's claim, the O*nyx pres are better than their previous preamps is not total BS.

Click to expand...

Right, that seems to make sense because it would be fairly inexpensive to implement.

Do you think it's necessarily worth the $1k price tag? I have my reservations about that one...maybe one day when I own a company that sells several thousand units of a particular design, I'll be more qualified to comment, but for now, the per channel price seems a little steep to me.

*edit*--I see that this has A/D conversion, too. That changes things a bit, I suppose. Still, their marketing claims of competing wth "tweaky boutique preamps" may be an overzealous comparison.

The "as good as tweaky boutique preamps" thing is marketing, imho. What they refer to is the variable impedance feature. In my experience, variable impedance on tranformerless preamps is of little use. Switching a tranformerless preamp to 600 ohms won't make it sound like a vintage preamp. Impedance switches on transformer coupled preamps make more sense, because you get more gain by lowering input impedance. On a tranformerless preamp you lose gain. The only application I had for impedance switches on transformerless preamps is finding out microphone impedance by measuring gain loss.

As I said, it's a good clean preamp. The converters are nice, too. I don't know a unit that's as good or better at a lower price. But the M-Audi0 0ctane is almost as good at half price.

Why has everyone got in in for Uncle Greg? I have loadsa esoteric vintage class A/tube/boutique call-it-what-you-want gear, yet regularly have to "lower" myself to using off-the-shelf stuff, like Mackie. He brought quality affordable, wholy useable gear to the masses that now compromise the general make-up of recording industry. You get what you pay for. soooo . . . GET WITH THE PROGRAM, GUYS! I use an SSL 4000E most days. On other days I use d8b's, or even just a computer to make music. I would rather have Mackie Mic-pre's than SSL E series mic pre's any day. If everyone used Mackie's properly, ie not pushing mic-pre's to digital (+18dB!) levels they would find that they sound ok. (I said ok, - OK?)
Of course I would prefer a rack of Neve/Helios/Calrec/EMI/etc, but please, STOP dismissing this stuff outahand. It does what it says on the tin. The new v5 d8b software sounds heeps better than v3, even if I still don't like the compressors, the eq is very good now, and won't "max" out like so many other digital eq's in the native environment. Also, I find that Logic and Protools start to sound very harsh as the computer starts rounding off numbers in stead of refusing to do calculations as it's work load increases like thety should. The d8b keeps sounding the same to me, no matter how near the maximum no of tracks/eq's/dynsmics etc. Also. it can have the Massenberg eq, which is the ONLY digital eq I really like. I live in the real world where many of my "producer"/"writer"/"artist" freinds live, make music and thrive. - and frequently require my services.
At the end of the day there is absolutely no question where my particular favours lie, of course I prefer real quality analogue. But it makes me mad to here so many people describe gear they have probably never even used as shit. Acceptable, usable, often average, clean, and uninspiring, yes, but not shit. I have done some of my best work on Mackies, and I'm proud of it! IT;s Da Muusik dat counts!!!!!!!

Blah,

ANdyP

Mackie stuff doesn't sound very good when you compare it to the best "pro"--whatever that means!--gear. But I have to give Greg and company props for at least one thing: they brought out small, fairly affordable mixers that were light years ahead of the "project studio"-grade mixers that had come before. The mixers that were available to me when I first got into recording were AWFUL, awful, noisy pieces of shit, very inflexible with a single aux send, fixed two-band EQ, no phantom, nearly nonexistent routing and monitoring, etc. Mackie was a big step up from that crap. I'm not joking. But I think Mackie exposed itself to mockery when it tried to bill itself as a maker of high-grade equipment when what it was really selling was "solid and decent for the price" mid-market gear.

Mackie is/were only affordable IF you bought in the US. the 24 channel mixer was around 40.000DKR (which is like 6630USD) and in general Mackie has been a lot more expensive than say Behringer. you can get a helluva lotta mixer used for six grand. no way i'd touch that Mackie with a ten foot pole

they may have put new 24 channel inline desks within the reach of everybody, but i'm not sure that's a good thing

the quality have gotten worse, prices a bit better, but Mackie is still a bit expensive in euroland and the competition is fierce. personally i'd take a comparable Soundcraft to Mackie mixer any day

i'm not dissing Wackie for what they make.. as others have mentioned, there is a place for their products and if you keep them in that place then they can't be beat. take one of their mixers out on the road for live mixing and such and you can't beat them, but take them home and try to do a platinum record on one and you are going to be disappointed(regardless of what all those *great* producers/engineers say about being able to mix some HIT on a cheapo desk..).

they have their place and so do more expensive and/or higher quality mixers, we just have to keep their purposes straight.

However.. wackie is pretty much trying to make their ONYX stuff sound like it's up there with Apogee and the like from what i have read... and this is what I am trying to call out.