considering a Mackie 1202 VLZ Pro mixer.....

[bryank]

just as a thought, but do you guys really think that getting a mixer with GREAT mic preamps will help a recording in such a big way?

currently i use a cheap Behringer eurodesk mixer, but i was thinking of getting a Mackie mixer with the VLZ PRO micpres,.........will it really make that big of a differnce in sound quality of the recordings?

what are your guys thoughts on this...........

 

[pingu]

It sure will man.



Pres and summing are a big issue. Especially pres.

Go for it if you can.

 

[bryank]

what is "summing"?

 

[pingu]

How well a console or DAW summs the tracks together.

So basicallly when you press play and you have say 15 instruments these instruments need to be combined into a stereo output, this is whats known as summing.

There is heaps of thread wars over this topic.

Summing is important as every mixing decision you make has to do with what you hear and the better the cosoles summing ability the more accurate your mixing decisions will be.

If you buy a cheap ass console and press play on the 15 tracks, you hear the stereo output that would be quite different and not as sonically detailed as the more expensive console.

 

[peopleperson]

It'll probably be a little quieter than your Behringer, but I wouldn't look for an enourmous difference. That's not that much of a jump in my opinion. My advice is to save a few more bucks and go a step beyond VLZ. Mackie's Onyx stuff is all really really good for example.

 

[bryank]

yeah, but this is the VLZ "PRO" series, which is i guess the step up for the Mic preamps they use.

I may be wrong though.....are the "Pro" series preamps decent? or are they about the same as all the other low end mixers like Behringer?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Both the VLZ Pro preamps AND the channel strip ciruitry are quieter and cleaner than the Behringer, and unles you are using toy microphones you should hear a definite difference between the two.

That said, howver, I agree with peoplepersonguy; as far as return on investment and bang for your buck, hang on to your eurodesk long enough to save up the sheckles to leapfrog the VLZ Pro and move right up to the Mackie Onyx.

Let's say that on some arbitrary scale that I'm pulling out of my butt that the Behringer rates 3 coconuts and the VLZ Pro rates 5 coconuts. I would put the Onyx at about 8 coconuts (and an AMS Neve would be around 20 ).

G.

 

[TheDewd]

It always makes me laugh when people tell they can hear more than subtle differences between preamps when both have good equal specs.
Let's face it guys, a preamp is only a linear small signal amplifier made mostly out of opamp chips with very good specs. Unless Behringer is lying about their specs, you shouldn't hear that great of a difference.

The only thing that can change the sound of a preamp is coloration (i.e. not frequency flat) and phase shift (i.e. not phase accurate). Since a flat frequency response is quite easy to acheive, the difference mostly comes from the phase response. And if you know a little about electronics, you know that this phase shift occurs mostly at high frequencies, where its less noticeable than with low frequencies.

Another possible reason for difference in sound would be the type of feedback used. I don't believe in those stinky audiophiles that say that feedback introduces some lag time into the signal and distorts it. I say it's audiophile crap, as usual.

All in all, there shouldn't be a world of difference...maybe a subtle one, but nothing outstanding that warrants spending a gazillion times as much.

 

[TuoKaerf]

I disagree with you completly.

Obviously a flat frequency response is important, and most Pre's out there do that well.

However, there can be a HUGE difference in how that preamp sounds. Noisy preamps (such as ones on most cheap mixers) can ruin your day.

Running the same guitar tone or snare sound through 3 different preamps will give you a VERY different sound.

A Great River or API preamp is definately worth it if you can afford one.

I suggest listening to the preamp. Most stores will allow you to hook something up to the mixer and run some signal through it. Try out a few different boards and see which one sounds the best to you and is within your budget range.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

It always makes me laugh when people tell they can hear more than subtle differences between preamps when both have good equal specs.
Let's face it guys, a preamp is only a linear small signal amplifier made mostly out of opamp chips with very good specs. Unless Behringer is lying about their specs, you shouldn't hear that great of a difference.

Awww, dooood, didn't we just have this same argument over amplifiers a couple of threads ago? It's even more so with these boxes.

Last summer I did a location gig recording a baby grand. There were three of us there; myself, the piano player and a mutual friend who is also a musician (he was just sitting in and observing.) We recorded the piano using two different signal paths; one used the pres on a Mackie VLZ, the other used the pres on a Tascam us122. Other than that, the entire rest of the signal chain was identical from mic used to cabling to recording device to monitors. No EQ, no filters, no nothing else was used. Not only could all three of us hear an immediate and marked difference in quality and sound between the Mackie and the Tascam (it was like simultaneous lightbulbs lighting over out heads), but even a deaf person could tell a huge difference by just comparing the waveforms in the editor as it was recording. You could literally SEE a huge difference in the nature of the sound being recorded. I'm not talking volume; I'm talking envelope, resolution, slew distortion, things like that. Yet there is no way in a million years one could get anything like that at all from looking at the specs. (BTW, the little ol' Tascam blew the Mackie away; it was like popping one's ears or taking the monitors out of a cardboard box and letting them breathe when we moved to the Tascam.)

You really need to pull your head out of the specs and use your ears instead. Honestly, frankly, and realistically, if you can't hear the difference between a Eurodesk and a VLZ Pro - let alone an Onyx - you need to move your hobby over to photography because your ears are just not cut out for this racket.

G.

 

[TheDewd]

You really need to pull your head out of the specs and use your ears instead. Honestly, frankly, and realistically, if you can't hear the difference between a Eurodesk and a VLZ Pro - let alone an Onyx - you need to move your hobby over to photography because your ears are just not cut out for this racket.
G.

Well, specs is science and science is truth. I'm more into truth than believing...I design and analyze analog circuits often, and we use specs, not ears to determine what's good or not.

People's ears are dominated by their minds and audio memory is a very short thing.

Having that said, I don't doubt there was actually a difference, but it shouldn't have been that obvious, unless the Tascam had some coloration and you liked the coloration of the Tascam, in which case the specs shouldn't match (like the slew-rate you mentionned, still I doubt you can hear the difference between 2V/us and 5V/us)

You have to take into account that the cheaper circuit of the Tascam might have been less flat than the Mackie and that's what you liked. Ears are often biased (louder is better, more highs is richer, less lows is tighter, etc.)

So if you guys are going for the "non scientifical approach", then go for it, but physics and science hasn't lied to me yet, and I don't plan on relying on my ears anytime soon to determine the quality of a small signal amplifier.

I rely on my ears to MIX, to MASTER and to TRACK. But I decide which gear I use by lab testing and science. Sorry to decieve you, but there is NO truth to ear comparison. Even when made quickly, ear memory and mind biasing is all there is to it.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Well, specs is science and science is truth. I'm more into truth than believing...I design and analyze analog circuits often, and we use specs, not ears to determine what's good or not.

If that's the case, then you are probably building products that your oscilliscopes are busting the doors down to buy.

Look, I'm as much into scientific method as the next geek, but I also know the truth of the old addage "there are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics." A limited set of performance specifications are nothing more than a limited set of statistics that describe only a narrow part of the story. And to extend that story to say that equal specs mean equal sound is plain and simply wrong when translated to real world experinece.

It's not a phychoacoustic trick, mass delusion, personal bias or anything like that. Its reality, and if you got off of AutoCAD and out of the lab for a little while and listened with an open mind in a double-blind A/B for yourself, you'd know what the truth really is. Or are you afraid the data may not fit your theory?

Life is a textbook. Textbooks are not life.

G.

 

[TheDewd]

If that's the case, then you are probably building products that your oscilliscopes are busting the doors down to buy.

Look, I'm as much into scientific method as the next geek, but I also know the truth of the old addage "there are llies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics." A limited set of performance specifications are nothing more than a limited set of statistics that describe only a narrow part of the story. And to extend that story to say that equal specs mean equal sound is plain and simply wrong when translated to real world experinece.

It's not a phychoacoustic trick, mass delusion, personal bias or anything like that. Its reality, and if you got off of AutoCAD and out of the lab for a little while and listened with an open mind in a double-blind A/B for yourself, you'd know what the truth really is. Or are you afraid the data may not fit your theory?

Life is a textbook. Textbooks are not life.

G.

While I don't agree, you have a very nice way of putting things down.
All in all, it's a great post, but I'd still want to know what is this other part of the story you refer to in this sentence: "A limited set of performance specifications are nothing more than a limited set of statistics that describe only a narrow part of the story"

We are in the 21st century, we can explore space, clone animals and soon humans, we can fight diseases, we can build astonishing electronic gadgets...I don't think if "there was another part of the story" that it wouldn't have been found yet as of this day...

Until I get scientific proof that there is another part of the story, I won't swallow it. I trust my oscillosope much better than my ears when designing a circuit that has to fit into good specs and good sound.

Believing that there is another part of the story is like believing in God (or whoever your God is...) and I don't buy that too. Why? Because if there ain't no proof that it exists, one can only suppose it might, but it's much safer (and scientifically accurate) to say it doesn't exist.

 

[teainthesahara]

While I don't agree, you have a very nice way of putting things down.
All in all, it's a great post, but I'd still want to know what is this other part of the story you refer to in this sentence: "A limited set of performance specifications are nothing more than a limited set of statistics that describe only a narrow part of the story"

We are in the 21st century, we can explore space, clone animals and soon humans, we can fight diseases, we can build astonishing electronic gadgets...I don't think if "there was another part of the story" that it wouldn't have been found yet as of this day...

Until I get scientific proof that there is another part of the story, I won't swallow it. I trust my oscillosope much better than my ears when designing a circuit that has to fit into good specs and good sound.

Believing that there is another part of the story is like believing in God (or whoever your God is...) and I don't buy that too. Why? Because if there ain't no proof that it exists, one can only suppose it might, but it's much safer (and scientifically accurate) to say it doesn't exist.

The other side of the story:

Dewd, what you are referring to, and probably are thinking as the "scientific method" (i.e. knowledge obtained by direct observation), is in fact only one method that most scientists use to gain objective knowledge. The other methods used are "the other side of the story". These involve studying phenomenon who's mode of existence are subjective, rather than objective. Many of the examples you list, e.g. fight disease/medical research owe much of their progress to this type of scientific method, and you can find such publications in any reputable, modern scientific journal. In otherwords, there is a scientifically based 'other part of the story', and the picture on the cover of the entire story book tends to change by the decade. It's not 'belief' versus 'truth', but "belief in the current truth". That's simply been the way of scientific study since the beginning...

 

[teainthesahara]

just as a thought, but do you guys really think that getting a mixer with GREAT mic preamps will help a recording in such a big way?

currently i use a cheap Behringer eurodesk mixer, but i was thinking of getting a Mackie mixer with the VLZ PRO micpres,.........will it really make that big of a differnce in sound quality of the recordings?

what are your guys thoughts on this...........

GREAT preamps will help for sure. I've never heard the VLZ pro qualify as GREAT preamps though...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Who or what are these products being designed for? Are they being designed for oscilliscopes or for the human ear? When you track and mix, do you track and mix so that the result looks "right" on test instruments or do you track and mix so that they sound "right"' to you?

When I talk about a "partial story" I'm staying that the specs only give an accurate representation of the specific parameters they are measuring. To think that those specifications or those particuar parameters are anywhere near the complete set of parameters that affect the resulting sound is, at best, misguided.

This has nothing to do with faith or belief in something untested or untestable. This has to do with real life experiment and observation of the total product, using the ear as the test instrument. I grant you that the ear is not a perfect instrument by a long shot, no two ears are the same. In that regard I may seem to be postulating something very unscientific. But oscilliscopes and Ohms Law calculations are just as unscientific in their own manor. The may be far more accurate in what they measure than the ear is, but they are also far narrower in what they are actually measuring. That is what I mean my "only part of the story."

A detailed topological map is very accurate and gives an informative picture of the geography of the area it represents. It is a detailed, graphical set of specifications, and has it's definite uses (as a backpacker I use them all the time and wouldn't live without them.) But as any backpacker can tell you, it does very little to tell one what that area actually LOOKS like. It simply can't handle a high enough level of detail to perform that function. It's the same with equipment specifications...even more so because those specifications are nowhere near as detailed as a color-coded, two-dimensional graphical map. They can tell you the technical basics of the story, but they can't tell you what the circuitry actually SOUNDS like.

You're right, we live in amazing times, technologically speaking. But we also live in an analog, non-linear world where there are physical and mathematical limitations to our ability to artificially model it. That's as true in the 21st century as it was in the 19th, and it will be equally as true in the 22nd. We will never be able to make accurate weather predictions 90 days ahead of time. It's not a matter of us not being smart enough or not knowing enough or not having enough computing power. It's a matter of the laws of physics and mathematics on which our universe is structured.

And a set of a paltry dozen or so specified parameters will never be able to accurately model the full characer of the audible sounds represented by the voltages produced by a real-life solid-state circuit.

G.

 

[TheDewd]

The other side of the story:

Dewd, what you are referring to, and probably are thinking as the "scientific method" (i.e. knowledge obtained by direct observation), is in fact only one method that most scientists use to gain objective knowledge. The other methods used are "the other side of the story". These involve studying phenomenon who's mode of existence are subjective, rather than objective. Many of the examples you list, e.g. fight disease/medical research owe much of their progress to this type of scientific method, and you can find such publications in any reputable, modern scientific journal. In otherwords, there is a scientifically based 'other part of the story', and the picture on the cover of the entire story book tends to change by the decade. It's not 'belief' versus 'truth', but "belief in the current truth". That's simply been the way of scientific study since the beginning...

Okay, but amplifiers, signal analysis and sound theory came to maturity about 20 years ago. Since then, nothing outstanding came out. So I think we reached the end. Look, you are not guilty unless the jury says you are. Same with science, unless proof is made, you can't say it exists. Even if it came from "the other side", they had to actually DEMONSTRATE the other side...which NO ONE could do since the beginning of audio, decades ago...

 

[TheDewd]

And a set of a paltry dozen or so specified parameters will never be able to accurately model the full characer of the audible sounds represented by the voltages produced by a real-life solid-state circuit.
G.

Today's simulators work at over 60 degrees to interpolation and perform more analysis than a human could do full time during his entire life! We have the tools to get things scientifically right and this is what we should be aiming for.

It all comes down to what you want to do:

1) Do you want to be scientifically rigourous and provide an excellent circuit that has awesome specs ?

OR

2) Do you want your circuit to be pleasant to some listeners who like how your circuit colors the sound and introduces non-linerarities ?

Number one will make scientific advances and breakthough possible, while the second one will get you to sell a few more units. It's all a matter of choice.

Indeed, I have found out that many amp designers are now shooting for "less than perfect" designs using no (or very little) negative feedback. Those circuits have poor specs (0.1% distortion is common) and manufacturers claim they sound better than a well-designed feedback amp. This is entirely NOT true. The only way you can pretend a distorted signal sounds better is by admitting you don't like a flat sound.

What I have found over my years of "audiophile behaviour study", is that MOST people don't like how "flat" sounds. So they tend to shy away from flat because they say it's "lifeless", "boring", etc. Thus, many audio professionnals use $5k devices that introduce some kind of coloration to get the sound they want. This is an entirely different story, since the coloration is used as an EQ and is not part of the monitoring chain.

To get back on topic, my experience showed me that the human ear tends to like some distortion and some color to the sound, which defeats the entire purpose of monitoring and preamping a $1k Royer ribbon mic...since you are coloring it further with the preamp. If that's the sound you aim for, great. But as a scientist, I aim for flatness and accuracy.

When one designs a preamp, you should aim for the best specs possible and least coloration. This is what Mackie does. And most people call their preamps "flat" and "boring but doesn't add anything to the signal"...isn't this how ANY preamp should sound if we favor scientific rigor? At the end of it, sound physics, electronics and signal analysis are well known and there is nothing left uncovered yet.

Mixing is another story, because you don't design a signal that's going into another equipment, you design a signal that's going into ears, so you have to make your mix good to the humar ear, not scientifically accurate. In my book, a preamp should aim to be as flat as possible to get the most out of your mic and source.

 

[mshilarious]

Even ignoring the rest of the audio path circuitry, do we know which chips the Behri and Mackie are using?

 

[TheDewd]

Even ignoring the rest of the audio path circuitry, do we know which chips the Behri and Mackie are using?

We would just have to open them up and see. Even then, what you do with the chips is much more important than what chips you are using. Negative feedback eliminates most of the defects anyways.