From djacques@csulb.edu Tue Aug 20 08:20:48 2002
Subject:RE: mackie srm450 vs roland kc500
I did exactly what you are considering. I enjoyed the KC500 because it
had a lot of volume that enabled me to could keep up with the screaming
guitar players in my classic rock band. However, it does not have a very
flat frequency range and tends to muddy up with volume.. So I purchased
the Mackie SRM450 initially for the sound quality for piano and other
samples.... To answer your questions:
The Mackie is LOUDER and much more present in a band mix. This goes for
piano and my CX3 sounds!
You do not need a submixer. Just have the PA plug into the XLR through
output in the back of the Mackie. That's exactly what I have the house
PA guys do on large gigs when I am just using the Mackie for a GREAT
monitor.
You will not be disappointed!
-----Original Message-----
From: sumillhouse [mailto:ptehan@excite.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 8:06 AM
To: CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [CWSG] mackie srm450 vs roland kc500
I have a nord electro (and a yamaha p80) through a roland kc500.
I'm satisfied with the sound of the kc500 but it takes up so much
space in my car, drives me nuts.
Wondering if anyone went from a kc500 to a mackie - I like the
multiple inputs on the roland (no submixer needed and has outs for
the PA when we use one). But the mackie would fit in the trunk which
would be most excellent. Not worried about the weight or lack of
wheels.
So I have 2 questions for those who know both
1. Is the Mackie as loud? one of the bands i play in is obnoxious
loud
2. Would I need a submixer with 2 outputs (one to the mackie and one
to the board) - I'm kind of clueless about submixers etc so I hope
I'm making sense.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
031959:HM/A=1182688/R=0/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039
-334>
To unsubscribe, send email to: CloneWheel-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]