Mackie non pro versus pro pre's

B

Bloomington

New member
I have a Mackie 1604 VLZ mixer - but it is not a VLZ Pro. I have read here that there is a difference in the pre's on these 2 models.

Is that true and if so would it be wise to invest in a separate pre amp unit - especially when trying to record acoustic guitar with a couple of C1000S mic's?

Also if you have only a 2 channel preamp e.g. an ART or whatever, and you have to record something using more that 2 mic's at once - well - any suggestions? :confused:

Thanks
 
I have a Mackie 1604 VLZ mixer - but it is not a VLZ Pro. I have read here that there is a difference in the pre's on these 2 models.
Click to expand...

Not enough difference for you to really worry about. People have to apply marketing terms to constant product improvements to increase product appeal... don't run out and buy a new mixer to get "pro" preamps

if so would it be wise to invest in a separate pre amp unit - especially when trying to record acoustic guitar with a couple of C1000S mic's?
Click to expand...

It's always wise to invest in a good quality preamp. Especially with condensors.

Also if you have only a 2 channel preamp e.g. an ART or whatever, and you have to record something using more that 2 mic's at once - well - any suggestions?
Click to expand...

For acoustic guitar, you should be able to get a decent sound with only two mics. If you need to use more (for drums, etc) try different combinations and see what works.

For instance, use the board pre's for kick, snare, hat, and toms, and use the 2 ch. tube pre for stereo overheads.

Hope that helps,

Brad
 
I disagree. The new "pro" pres do sound significantly better. The old Mackie pres were everything I hated in a cheap mixer... they just sounded "cheap". Brittle, thin, noisy, you name it.
Now, the new "pro" pres don't sound warm or fat or juicy... they're not worht a1000$ a channel or anything... but they DON'T sound brittle or thin or noisy at all. Instead, they sound a lot more like the mix source they are presenting. Well worth an upgrade, especially since you can get six of them on the 1402 pretty cheap on ebay. just remember, when dealing with Mackie, NEVER USE THE EQ! That's some of the worst eq I've ever heard.
 
Everybody's a critic ;-)

I've never used Mackie in the studio, but I've used them on the road forever. For the money, I never found them to be cheap sounding (I have a little experience, as I run a professional sound reinforcement company that does shows throughout the Gulf Coast)

And although the eq doesn't hold a candle to Soundcraft or A&H... I would never advise someone NOT to use it when necessary.

Use your ears. If it sounds better with eq, use the eq. I have yet to hear a single mix that sounded better with no eq than with small enhancements to make the instruments sit in their sonic space.

In a low budget studio, the question is always "what should I buy next". With limited resources, you have to look hard to get rid of the weakest links in your recording chain.

When I first started out, I would latch onto these great deals I found on the road, instead of concentrating on what I really needed. Talk about a way to run up a Visa bill!!! :-)

Start at the beginning of your recording chain (mic and pre) and work back from there. If you don't get it good from the get go, the board won't matter. (Garbage in - Garbage out)

All the best,

Brad
 
I don't know how the old Mackies sounded, but I have the newer VLZ Pro, and I would rank them as "barely adequate if you are not too picky". There are many others which are at least as good or better, and if you are thinking of upgrading I would think about buying something significantly better.

I don't know how the Mackie marketing department managed to convince so may people that these are "pro" preamps, but I fell for it too. It is a nice inexpensive mixer, nothing less...but nothing more.

Peace,
Rick

PS: extramedb's advice seems right on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top