Explain mixers

[Super 8]

I'm reposting this from the Behringer thread in hopes of getting a little better response. The issue was that a person was looking for a mixer. One person recomended Mackie. The response was that he was looking for a better quality board. And then I posted the following: "Somebody help me understand this a little better. I have always known that Mackie has a reputation for making quality gear. To my thinking, aside from workmanship the next consideration would be a feature set. But with regard to sound quality, wouldn't you want the mixer to be as 'transparent' as possible? I thought Mackies were pretty good in this area. I here comments about their mic-pre's. I can only assume we are talking about sound 'coloration', and not how low the noise level is. Finally, in accounting for these differences in "quality" between one board and another, is this something you can really hear without doing an 'A'/'B' comparison? Thanks"

[Super 8]

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Wewus432]

I don't know man I think you bummed everybody out saying you liked Roger Waters. haha just kidding. This is a good subject. I think Lee Flier knows a hell of a lot about this subject. Whenever I look at this I go, so you have to buy a board and then you have to buy mic pre to supplant(look it up) this board. Why can't you just get the whole package?

[Rog]

I'm not so sure there is such as thing as 'transparent' and if there is, why is it a good thing? People pay serious cash for the 'Neve sound' or 'analog warmth' and not transparency. Digital is supposed to be transparent and yet I don't know of anyone whose opinion I trust that finds the ProFools sound at all pleasing. The RADAR system is praised for it's analog sound so ... what gives?

[KenElevenShadows]

" But with regard to sound quality, wouldn't you want the mixer to be as 'transparent' as possible? I thought Mackies were pretty good in this area. I here comments about their mic-pre's. I can only assume we are talking about sound 'coloration', and not how low the noise level is. Finally, in accounting for these differences in "quality" between one board and another, is this something you can really hear without doing an 'A'/'B' comparison? Thanks" ------------ I noticed that there still isn't a lot of response to this, so I'll take a stab at it. Some people feel that a mixer should be as transparent as possible, especially where noise is concerned. Most people do not want their mixer to add noise. However, when getting to something like EQ, there are many who want a certain coloration, hence terms like "British EQ" and so forth. How EQ is added can certainly make a difference in the overall sound, so one may as well get something that's as ear-pleasing as possible. Mackies have pretty good mic preamps, especially for their price point. This is just my opinion, but I find their EQ to be lackluster, somewhat characterless. I know this is not very scientific, but it is, after all, an opinion. Others find Mackie's EQ to be just fine, feeling that it is "transparent" and doesn't add a whole lot of that character. So in a case like this, it's possible that what one person is looking for, another may not want. Either point of view is valid. And for just EQ alone, this is absolutely something that you can A/B. Furthermore, this is something that, say, if you are talking about adding 16 24, whatever channels, if the EQ and so forth has a noticeable or strong character, it can often become far more apparent when shoving this many channels through the board. I've recorded with Mackie boards and Neotek consoles before, and the difference in the sound quality is amazingly different, just astoundingly so. I hope this somewhat addresses your questions.