ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Relative failure rate of comparable mixers?  (Read 5204 times)

Wayne Smith2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
Relative failure rate of comparable mixers?
« on: August 25, 2013, 09:27:38 pm »

I have an Onyx 1620 that may turn out like two other Mackies to have a ribbon connection problem. Support request sent to Mackie, symptoms intermittent or static'y main outputs subject to level and/or tapping on it, so far sounding rather familiar.

This is happening with a relatively modern ver of their mixers, and I also still have an eight bus that already had the ribbon repair. I resorted to picking up and dropping the front edge of the 8-bus a few weeks ago to get through a session, so now I guess I'm placed into mixer decision' land on two fronts.

Trying to get some guidance, I'm just wondering if all or other manufactures within similar price and feature ranges have comparable rates of problems as well?
Logged

Corey Scogin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1119
  • Birmingham, AL, US
Re: Relative failure rate of comparable mixers?
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2013, 11:20:36 pm »

I have an A&H MixWiz3 that I've had for many years and used weekly.  Early on, within the first year I think, some of the Aux's stopped passing any audio.  It was due to a poorly constructed ribbon cable, not a loose one.  A&H tech support just shipped me a new cable and I replaced it.  Haven't had any trouble since then.  That's been at least 6 years ago.

More recently, I had a problem with 1 channel of a Focusrite Octopre (8 channel recording preamp).  The channel was weak compared to others until turned up past 12:00 at which point it would jump up to the level it should be.  After a few minutes it would be back to sounding weak again.  I opened it up and re-seated a couple of ribbon cables and haven't had the issue since.

I think electronics manufacturers should find a more robust multi-pin connector.  This problem is far too common.
Logged

Bob Leonard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6807
  • Boston, MA USA
Re: Relative failure rate of comparable mixers?
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2013, 12:20:58 am »

I own a Mackie 1640 that's an original about 8-9 years old. I have never had a problem. I own an APB Pro House that's 2 years old, I have never had a problem. I own a Soundcraft SI Expression that is a month old, I have never had a problem.

Ribbon problems with Mackie mixers was a very common complaint at one point with the 1604 being the "King". Any board can have a problem on any day, but not every day or often. Take it apart and reseat the cables.
Logged
BOSTON STRONG........
Proud Vietnam Veteran

I did a gig for Otis Elevator once. Like every job, it had it's ups and downs.

Tommy Peel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1454
  • Longview, Texas
    • Facebook Profile
Re: Relative failure rate of comparable mixers?
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2013, 01:13:44 am »

I regularly mix on two Onyx 1640s and have never had a problem with either but judging by how many ribbon cables it has i can imagine that they have issues occasionally.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Logged

Nathan Vanderslice

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 271
Re: Relative failure rate of comparable mixers?
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2013, 02:59:59 pm »

I have an Onyx 1620 that may turn out like two other Mackies to have a ribbon connection problem. Support request sent to Mackie, symptoms intermittent or static'y main outputs subject to level and/or tapping on it, so far sounding rather familiar.

This is happening with a relatively modern ver of their mixers, and I also still have an eight bus that already had the ribbon repair. I resorted to picking up and dropping the front edge of the 8-bus a few weeks ago to get through a session, so now I guess I'm placed into mixer decision' land on two fronts.

Trying to get some guidance, I'm just wondering if all or other manufactures within similar price and feature ranges have comparable rates of problems as well?

I don't do much in the way of sound, and because of it being mostly a hobby, I have had to resort in many cases to purchasing used equipment. My first board was a Ramsa, the second a Ramsa (the first one stolen) and the third one a Ramsa. They are built like tanks. They hold up well as long as you take care of them. Right now I have a second WM S4416 that I had gotten off of Ebay. The first one was no better than a boat anchor. While it is a risk, you can find good equipment from time to time. BTW, the second, I got for 80% of the cost of the first, and it was if I had bought a brand new board both in appearance and function. My thought is a used pro board is better than one of these "budget" mixers feigned to be pro, but aimed at the home/retail market not pro use. Let's face it, the pro boards are pro boards for a reason, the way their built.
Logged

James A. Griffin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 832
Re: Relative failure rate of comparable mixers?
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2013, 08:51:44 pm »

I resorted to picking up and dropping the front edge of the 8-bus a few weeks ago to get through a session, so now I guess I'm placed into mixer decision' land on two fronts.

If dropping a Mackie is a proven way to fix it, I guess you put that on your list of options    ;D
Logged
I need to determine where in this swamp of unbalanced formulas squatteth the Toad of Truth

g'bye, Dick Rees

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7424
  • Duluth
Re: Relative failure rate of comparable mixers?
« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2013, 09:04:00 pm »

I have an Onyx 1620 that may turn out like two other Mackies to have a ribbon connection problem. Support request sent to Mackie, symptoms intermittent or static'y main outputs subject to level and/or tapping on it, so far sounding rather familiar.

This is happening with a relatively modern ver of their mixers, and I also still have an eight bus that already had the ribbon repair. I resorted to picking up and dropping the front edge of the 8-bus a few weeks ago to get through a session, so now I guess I'm placed into mixer decision' land on two fronts.

Trying to get some guidance, I'm just wondering if all or other manufactures within similar price and feature ranges have comparable rates of problems as well?

My nephew had a Mackie mixer recently stop working, but my uncle has an old Soundcraft that just won't quit.  So the relative failure rate here is 50%, I guess.
Logged
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

Chuck Simon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1139
  • Pittsburgh, Pa.
Re: Relative failure rate of comparable mixers?
« Reply #7 on: August 26, 2013, 09:05:01 pm »

I have a AH GL-2 that I bought new in 1995.  A couple of years ago I had some solder joints redone, and that's it!  It's still superior to alot of new boards.  Now it rides in my van as a back up to those new-fangled digital boards I'm using.  I think the older, British made Allen and Heath boards might be some of the most reliable ones out there.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2013, 09:10:20 pm by Chuck Simon »
Logged

Wayne Smith2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
Re: Relative failure rate of comparable mixers?
« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2013, 12:15:33 am »

If dropping a Mackie is a proven way to fix it, I guess you put that on your list of options    ;D
It was the damnedest thing, mostly it just does tracking monitoring and phones mixes for the band. Sources started to go weak and midrangie' and mono! Pans on the main and B-bus gone. Second time dropping' it was fine the rest of the day and the next.
Logged

James A. Griffin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 832
Re: Relative failure rate of comparable mixers?
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2013, 12:18:12 pm »

My nephew had a Mackie mixer recently stop working, but my uncle has an old Soundcraft that just won't quit.  So the relative failure rate here is 50%, I guess.

Exactly.   Put one hand in a fire  and the other in liquid nitrogen.  Statistically speaking, you should be comfortable.
Logged
I need to determine where in this swamp of unbalanced formulas squatteth the Toad of Truth

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: Relative failure rate of comparable mixers?
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2013, 12:18:12 pm »


Pages: [1]   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.047 seconds with 25 queries.