Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (
More info?)
huwgareth@my-deja.com (5016) wrote in message news:<663e5397.0410201805.14350dca@posting.google.com>...
> mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:<znr1098279418k@trad>...
> > In article <933507b.0410191859.7a38377f@posting.google.com> mirek_kukielka@yahoo.com writes:
> >
> > > Does anyone know what the difference is between the 500 and 600
> > > series Soundcraft models?
> >
> > They use the same input modules, but the output modules are different,
> > as is the metering. The 600 is a multitrack (16-track unless you score
> > the "Producer" version) recording console and has eight subgroup bus
> > outputs and 16 tape returns to the "sidecar" mixer, which are
> > normalled to the line inputs on the main channels. You make the
> > monitor mix with on tape return section, then when you get ready to
> > mix, push the Line In buttons and all the tape return signals appear
> > on the main channel strips.
> >
> > The 500 has a different output module which is more conducive to
> > making stage monitor mixes. I don't have a good sense of the 500 since
> > I don't own one (I have a 600).
> >
> > > Someone had suggested to me
> > > that 500 can be internally switched to mimic the 600 series.
> >
> > Depends on what you want to mimic. One obvious difference is that the
> > 600 has LED meters for the 16 tape returns which can be switched to
> > read the bus levels. The 500 has analog meters for the bus outputs.
> >
> > > Could anyone in-the-know shed some light on some major differences
> > > between these boards? I can get one in absolutely mint condition for
> > > almost nothing - so, should I even bother? The board was recently
> > > professionally inspected, cleaned, etc.
> >
> > If you have the space for it, definitely get it. If you use it in the
> > typical "record one track at a time" mode, a 500 will serve fine. The
> > mic preamps are not up to the quality of today's best, but in most
> > cases I like the sound of mine better than on my Mackie VLZ Pro (the
> > Mackie is a good way to get a more bright sound from a mediocre mic,
> > something I rarely do). The EQ fits the "musically sounding"
> > description, and it has all the headroom you'll ever need.
>
> I found it to be a massive improvement over the Mackie-type gear. The
> mixes I made were much better, probably due to the EQ being usable and
> the headroom being substantially better. It is not ultra-quiet, but
> for rock recording it doesn't have to be. It sounds better than
> anything else you can get for the price (I bought mine for $800 and
> sold for $1000 when I came into money to upgrade substantially, and it
> was a bargain at either price).
>
> If you have the room to dedicate as a mointor mixer, then it would do
> the job well, but that is kind of a waste of its capabilities.
>
> >
> > > is this thing quiet enough to pretend to be
> > > a semi-pro monitor mixer? Oh, and of course, is it reliable ?
> >
> > It doesn't have to pretend to be anything. It's just fine. There are
> > some ground issues that as far as I know nobody has ever absolutely
> > fixed, so it isn't totally hum-free, but then what is?
Thank you all for taking the time to respond to my post. I do have
couple of followup questions though:
1) Can channel modules from 500 be used in the 600 model and vice
versa? So, basically, can I swap modules between these two desks?
2) Someone suggested that Jim Williams offers some mods for either
500 or 600 models. Has anyone upgraded their desk with these mods,
and if so, did they noticeably improve sonic performance of your
Soundcraft mixer?
Thank you,
Mirek