1604 VLZ vs. 1604 VLZ Pro

[imanogre]

I hate to bother you guys with a silly question but can someone tell me what the difference is between a Mackie 1604 VLZ and a 1604 VLZ Pro? There seems to be a noticeable price difference on these items on Ebay. Thanks!

 

[Wireneck]

I have no clue actually but im going to take a guess that the PRO is an updated model. Thats just speculation and I am sure someone here knows whats up but unfortunately I don't know the "real" difference.

 

[SonicAlbert]

They are basically the same except the PRO version has the newer XDR preamps.

 

[distortedrumble]

the vlz pro has a direct out for every mono input

 

[PapillonIrl]

I've heard it said by a couple of people whom I trust, that the original vlz was built better, lasted longer and had slightly better sounding preamps.

Subjective, I know. But both these people are into a/b testing and move in different circles.

But direct out on every channel ? Didn't know that...that could come in handy alright.

Nathan

 

[boingoman]

I've heard it said by a couple of people whom I trust, that the original vlz was built better, lasted longer and had slightly better sounding preamps.

Nathan

I'll second that. I've had mine for almost ten years, never a problem. The VLZ Pro series and their power amps seemed to be plagued with the ubiquitous "ribbon cable problem". I worked in retail and service and must have replaced 75 or 80 of those damn things, many three or four times in the same mixer or amp.
IMO the improved specs of the VLZ Pro preamps was outweighed by the more brittle sound.
I like my 1604VLZ and wanted the Pro to be better. But I think that series fell short.
The 8 direct outs never bothered me, as the inserts could be used as direct outs,and I could always find chyannels that did not need compression on the way in to the recorder. It meant some repatching at mixdown, though.