Anyone use a Mackie SR 24-4? Opinions?

S

saxman72

New member
Hi everyone!

So here's where I'm at... I've been using the original CR1604 for many many flawless years in my midi/audio setup. It's followed me through the years as I went from 4-track tape to DA-88 and now to Cubase.

I'm at a point where I could use more inputs but don't have a lot of space for a bigger mixer. I know the SR 24-4 is primarily designed (marketed) for live sound, but it has just about everything I need for my purposes.

Would it be a mistake to use this for my recording set-up? I'm assuming the sound of the 24-4 (especially the new vlz-pro) is at least as good as my original 1604. But before buying on assumptions, I want to check with real world people.

Any other mid-sized mixers to consider?

Thanks everyone,

Saxman72
 
I may be wrong, but I thought the SR24-4 does not have insert points for any channels.

If you need a recording board - I would think inserts (for direct outs, or for inserting processing gear like compression or EQ) is a must.
 
You are wrong. The SR24VLZ has inserts on all but the stereo channels.

I really like the 32.4 we have. It sounds good and dials in easily. Particularly clean for drums. Has a nice musicality to it. It is going to be MUCH cleaner than your original 1604. The VLZ preamps are really clean. I record practice all the time on the 1604VLZ-PRO and it is really nice. It certainly is not a Neve or one of the big guns but in the price point, I don't think you will be disappointed. Here is the lowdown from the Mackie site on the specs. I would say to go for it.

When you put all of the SR-VLZ PRO Series' features and enhancements together, you'll have two highly-affordable sound reinforcement mixers with what it takes for both live and small studio applications.

Premuim XDR mic preamps (20 on the SR24•4 VLZ PRO, 28 on the SR32•4 VLZ PRO)
4 submix buses
6 aux sends (2 pre, 2 post, 2 switchable pre/post)
3-band EQ with sweepable mids (4-band fixed EQ on stereo channels)
75Hz Low cut filter on all mono channels
"Air" EQ on sub buses
Talkback section with level control, LED, and separate rear XLR input
"Double-bused" sub outs for eight track recording without repatching
Inserts on all mono channels and subs
AFL/PFL solo on all channels (globally switchable)
60mm log-taper faders for consistent fades
Balanced XLR and 1/4" main outputs
Additional mono XLR main out with level control
Balanced inputs and outputs (except phones, inserts, RCAs)
Built-in power supply
12V BNC lamp socket
Click to expand...
 
Thanks trpullen,

Here's a question I just thought about... Do the line inputs sound better on the new Mackies too, or is it just the mic inputs? I suppose since the line inputs have to go through the same gain stages (or do they?), that they'd benefit from the cleaner pre-amps as well. Someone tell me if I'm wrong.

I use the mixer primarily as a midi/synth mixer. Most of my audio, I track through a variety of pre's and compressors that I have (including Neve, TLA, and a LA-2A copy). :)

Since space IS an issue for me, I might not get the 24.4. I may get the newest 1604 or just stick with my old 1604. Does the new 1604 sound as good as the new 24.4?

Thanks guys!

Saxman72
 
I think the VLZPRO preamp is the same in the 24.4 as it is in the 1604. I would say, that the improvement would be the same on both. Looking at the schematic on page 28 of the manual, I would have to say that yes the line in benefits. It appears that there is a switch between the XLR/Line In and Preamp that selects an input, thus they both use the mic pre.
 
Love it when I find the perfect thread.

So, is it pretty safe to say, that besides all the extra holes, buttons and busses that a Mackie 24.8 or 32.8 have, the SR24.4/32.4 have pretty much the same plumbing?

I wonder, because all i really need a mixer for is lot's of decent Pre's and Auxes for musican cue ...

So, from the Mic Pre, to the insert, would you say that the SR24.4 is identical to the 24.8?

I suppose I'll go look at the schematic now... ;)

Thanks gents,
Mofracky
 
Yah, so in case anyone cares, I took a look at the schematic for the 24.8 vs the 24.4 -- The .8 has inserts and direct outs, the .4 only has inserts, but the 'letrics are the same from XLR to insert on both -- as probably expected.

Which is i would think is kind of interesting news for peeps who go directly to thier DAW. 20 XDR pre's, 6 (!) auxes (2 switchable) EQ with Mid sweep, 4 busses for $1599 less than a .8, sounds like the right thing to do ...

Can anyone offer a reason why a SR mixer is a bad choice for a DAW application?

Thanks again!
mo.
 
Mofracky said:

Can anyone offer a reason why a SR mixer is a bad choice for a DAW application?
Click to expand...

maybe a small insignificant.....but 60 mm fadars??? (and tiny knobs)
 
Ther used to be a guy named "Mad John" on www.recording.org who had some HUGE issues with using that board in the studio. Maybe you might want to go over there and do a search for that thread.

He claimed there was crosstalk issues between channels, and the muting only padded the volume down, but didn't kill it completely. I have no idea how reliable his impressions are, but evidently there is at least one guy out there who had problems using this as a recording board. I may not be remembering everything exactly right, so don't take my description as gospel - but might be worth checking out.
 
Cool,

Thanks for those replies guys!

So, 60mm faders I'm OK with. I'm also OK with a little bit of crosstalk, and even some volume on a muted track. Weird huh?

No! Because I go directly out of my mixer into Cubase, end of mixer story!

So the mixer for me (and i would imagine any homerecordist that puts faith in "mouse-mixing") is really a glorified headphone mixer and a row of pre-amps. :)

I'm pumped ... I'm going for the SR.

Thanks again!
Mo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top