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

[SouthSIDE Glen]

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!

Not quite true. The human processes ALL degrees of analysis on a close-to-real-time bases (limited only by the speed of the electrical impulses in the brain); technically an infinitely larger number of degress than such any digital simulator can chew, though I'll back off a bit from that technical definition to avoid an arguement over semantics.

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 ?

There is no such thing as a colorless circuit, no matter how "awsome" the specs. Again and again I say to you, the specs themselves are incomplete. It's not the accuracy of the specs, or how well one can design a circuit to meet those specs (though of course that is important as far as it goes.) It's that the limited world defined by those specs that falls short as an accurate analog of the real world, in the same way that a road map falls short as an accurate analog of the real world.

When one designs a preamp, you should aim for the best specs possible and least coloration.

I don't disagree with that (see, we *can* occasionally agree ) However, (yet again) there is coloration that can't be defined by the sum of 60 values.

And this still does not change the fact that there is no such thing in the real world as a $50/channel or $100/channel preamp that is not "colored" in some way. Let me put that another way; there is no such thing as a $100 preamp that replicates an exact - though amplified - copy of the signal sent to it. You argue that while such differences may be measurable (though maybe not, if their specs are the same), that it's not audible. What I am telling you from a quarter century of experience using these tools that the differences are most certainly and unquestionably audible.

A plumber has to choose between two channel locks (apologies, I've been replacing plumbing in my kitchen the past two days and I have plumbing tools on my mind ) He has a choice between, say, the Master Mechanic and the Craftsman. They are basically the same price, they are built to the same "specifications" in the fact that they are roughly the same size, the same weight; they work on the same sized nuts and are equally well built from the same forged steel, etc. So he buys them both and takes them on the job with him. After a few gigs, he comes back and returns one of them and keeps the other. Which one does he choose? He chooses the one that "feels better". How does he quantify that? Where are the specs that define that? There are always such "intangibles" that make what appear to be identical products on paper different in the real analog world. Was his decision scientific? Maybe not. Does he care if it was? Nope.

At the end of it, sound physics, electronics and signal analysis are well known and there is nothing left uncovered yet.

And metallurgy and forging and basic tool design are even better known. Does that mean that the plumber can't tell the difference between the two channel locks?

And this is what Mackie does. 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?
...
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.

Isn't this a contradiction?

What's wrong with choosing a preamp that helps the engineer get to the sound he desires, that he finds pleasing? Why is it the mic that has to be colored and the pre that has to be flat? What's wrong with a flat mic and a colored preamp. I know, it's much harder to design a flat mic, but that's not the point. In fact what's wrong with a colord mic AND a colored preamp? The best engineers in this business have made a career out of the ability to mix and match mics and preamps to get just the right sound on tracking that they need, so they don't have to "fix in the mix". Why should the engineer use every tool BUT the preamp to get the desired sound? That makes no sense.

Dewd, I appreciate your desire as an EE to shoot for the ultimate in circuit design. It's admirable that you have such a caring and a passion for such things. I'm not arguing against that in the least bit.

All I'm saying is that once your and your competitor's circuits leave the lab and get into the real world,despite your best efforts, they DO sound different. It's not your fault, that's just how the world works. And I'm not saying that yours are better or worse, just that they're different.

That said, their are preamps that ARE better for the job than others. It's very, very rare that you'll find an engineer that *desires* the preamp in a Eurodesk over that in an Onyx. It's not pride or perception or faith or anything like that. It's that the sound deliverd by the Eurodesk pre is more limiting for the engineer in what he can do with it once the signal moves down the path.

This factor may be invisible in the spec sheets, but it sticks out like a snowball in a coal bin in the control room.

G.

 

[mshilarious]

I went looking around and discovered the VLZ used 4560s and the Onyx is supposed to use a Burr-Brown chip. Don't know about the Behris.

I've spend enough time playing with opamps to have a strong opinion about the difference in those two chips.

 

[TheDewd]

I went looking around and discovered the VLZ used 4560s and the Onyx is supposed to use a Burr-Brown chip. Don't know about the Behris.

I've spend enough time playing with opamps to have a strong opinion about the difference in those two chips.

Well I exclusively use BurrBrown chips, most noticeably the OPA134 which is a high quality audio opamp with incredible specs. The 4560 is a very average opamp and I wouldn't use it into a "serious" design.

 

[mshilarious]

Well I exclusively use BurrBrown chips, most noticeably the OPA134 which is a high quality audio opamp with incredible specs. The 4560 is a very average opamp and I wouldn't use it into a "serious" design.

Yep, me too, down to the model of BB opamp . So now I'm a little confused about the debate above

 

[TheDewd]

Not quite true. The human processes ALL degrees of analysis on a close-to-real-time bases (limited only by the speed of the electrical impulses in the brain); technically an infinitely larger number of degress than such any digital simulator can chew, though I'll back off a bit from that technical definition to avoid an arguement over semantics.

While I agree the human brain is fast, circuit analysis is a compex process that has to be broken down to steps by the human. Most circuit design occurs on simulators rather than on paper for this reason.

There is no such thing as a colorless circuit, no matter how "awsome" the specs. Again and again I say to you, the specs themselves are incomplete. It's not the accuracy of the specs, or how well one can design a circuit to meet those specs (though of course that is important as far as it goes.) It's that the limited world defined by those specs that falls short as an accurate analog of the real world, in the same way that a road map falls short as an accurate analog of the real world.

While there is no such thing as a totally colorless circuit, you can do your best to achieve it when designing the circuit.

I don't disagree with that (see, we *can* occasionally agree ) However, (yet again) there is coloration that can't be defined by the sum of 60 values.

The more parameters you take into account, the closer you get to the "real" thing. And 60 to 100 levels of abstraction are REALLY close to the truth.

And this still does not change the fact that there is no such thing in the real world as a $50/channel or $100/channel preamp that is not "colored" in some way. Let me put that another way; there is no such thing as a $100 preamp that replicates an exact - though amplified - copy of the signal sent to it. You argue that while such differences may be measurable (though maybe not, if their specs are the same), that it's not audible. What I am telling you from a quarter century of experience using these tools that the differences are most certainly and unquestionably audible.

What you hear is the color of the different preamps. Since no two preamps can have EXACT specs, they will all sound a little different, but two preamps designed to be flat should not sound that different at all.

A plumber has to choose between two channel locks (apologies, I've been replacing plumbing in my kitchen the past two days and I have plumbing tools on my mind ) He has a choice between, say, the Master Mechanic and the Craftsman. They are basically the same price, they are built to the same "specifications" in the fact that they are roughly the same size, the same weight; they work on the same sized nuts and are equally well built from the same forged steel, etc. So he buys them both and takes them on the job with him. After a few gigs, he comes back and returns one of them and keeps the other. Which one does he choose? He chooses the one that "feels better". How does he quantify that? Where are the specs that define that? There are always such "intangibles" that make what appear to be identical products on paper different in the real analog world. Was his decision scientific? Maybe not. Does he care if it was? Nope.

You are confusing personnal taste and scientific accuracy. The plumber uses the tool that suits him best, not the best too. The audio engineer that wants the least coloration uses the flatest premp, not the one that sounds the best.

What's wrong with choosing a preamp that helps the engineer get to the sound he desires, that he finds pleasing? Why is it the mic that has to be colored and the pre that has to be flat? What's wrong with a flat mic and a colored preamp. I know, it's much harder to design a flat mic, but that's not the point. In fact what's wrong with a colord mic AND a colored preamp? The best engineers in this business have made a career out of the ability to mix and match mics and preamps to get just the right sound on tracking that they need, so they don't have to "fix in the mix". Why should the engineer use every tool BUT the preamp to get the desired sound? That makes no sense.

It depends on your vision of the signal chain. My own vision of the signal chain is this:
What you put to tape or DAW has to be the closest to the source as possible. This means using the flattest mic you can afford and a totally flat signal chain. Since the preamp is a critical part of the signal chain, you want it to be as flat as possible. SInce hardly any mic is really flat, I lump the mic and instrument together out of the signal chain and try to make the remaining as flat as possible.

All I'm saying is that once your and your competitor's circuits leave the lab and get into the real world,despite your best efforts, they DO sound different. It's not your fault, that's just how the world works. And I'm not saying that yours are better or worse, just that they're different.

Of course, but anyone that has the same vision of a signal chain as I do will prefer flat preamps.

That said, their are preamps that ARE better for the job than others. It's very, very rare that you'll find an engineer that *desires* the preamp in a Eurodesk over that in an Onyx. It's not pride or perception or faith or anything like that. It's that the sound deliverd by the Eurodesk pre is more limiting for the engineer in what he can do with it once the signal moves down the path.

To me, a better preamp is a flatter preamp. To some, it might be a colored preamp. It's all a matter of taste in the end. But I still think it's a flaw to color the instrument's original sound before going to tape or DAW. Adjustments should be made while mixing with signals as pure as possible.

This factor may be invisible in the spec sheets, but it sticks out like a snowball in a coal bin in the control room.

This is due to the fact that most spec sheets aren't detailed enough for you to make the link between what you hear and the measures specs put on paper.

 

[TheDewd]

Yep, me too, down to the model of BB opamp . So now I'm a little confused about the debate above

We are basically arguing about this:

- Should a preamp be designed as flat as possible

- You can look at specs and anticipate how a circuit will sound. I did this kind of test on another board. Someone uploaded me two spec sheets and asked me how the circuits sounded. What I told him was about 60% on the spot. Given there was between 5 and 10 specs on which I based my assumptions, I guess with all possible specs, I could have anticipated exactly how it would have sounded.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

This is due to the fact that most spec sheets aren't detailed enough for you to make the link between what you hear and the measures specs put on paper.

Yes yes yes! This is what I have been trying to say to you all along! Why did that have to be so hard?

OK, end of thread.

G.

 

[teainthesahara]

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...

20 years is a drop in the bucket. You would not be the first to think we have reached the end in any type of endevour...it happens in every generation. You are looking for 'objective' proof from things that dont necessarily exist in that mode. Conciousness exists...how exactly can you directly "prove" it? My point is this: you have assigned the measurement machine as truth, and the biological machinery in which we interpret pressure waves, as inferior because it is inherently subjective. From that viewpoint, you will be right on the mark for some assements, but will completely and alltogether off the mark for others. It is something you simply have to accept when you take one viewpoint/philosophy over another. Your analysis of circuits and design make complete sense, just not nescesarily from a scientific point of view!

 

[TheDewd]

Yes yes yes! This is what I have been trying to say to you all along! Why did that have to be so hard?

OK, end of thread.

G.

LOL!
Well, we still disagree on the fact that specs tell everything about audio, but we'll leave it at that for now.

It's always a pleasure to have arguments with you Glen. You are one of the fews on this board who don't get caught into insulting me.

 

[TheDewd]

20 years is a drop in the bucket. You would not be the first to think we have reached the end in any type of endevour...it happens in every generation. You are looking for 'objective' proof from things that dont necessarily exist in that mode. Conciousness exists...how exactly can you directly "prove" it? My point is this: you have assigned the measurement machine as truth, and the biological machinery in which we interpret pressure waves, as inferior because it is inherently subjective. From that viewpoint, you will be right on the mark for some assements, but will completely and alltogether off the mark for others. It is something you simply have to accept when you take one viewpoint/philosophy over another. Your analysis of circuits and design make complete sense, just not nescesarily from a scientific point of view!

The trick here is to separate those views.
My job as an EE is to make sure that what goes into the "biological machinery in which we interpret pressure waves" is as accurate as possible.
What goes on beyond this is totally subjective and depends on individuals.
However, if it is as accurate as possible before it reaches the humar ear, you reduce the problem to a physiological one and not an electrical one.

 

[mshilarious]

LOL!
Well, we still disagree on the fact that specs tell everything about audio, but we'll leave it at that for now.

*Published* specs tell very little, at least beyond the crap level of gear. As an EE, you probably have access to lots of specs that never hit the press. This seems to me to be a difference of perspective.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

LOL!
Well, we still disagree on the fact that specs tell everything about audio.

Huh?????? Make up your mind.

You know what, never mind. I now haven't the slightest idea where you're coming from and no longer want to know. It's like trying to nail jello to a tree; it's impossible, and there's no point to it even if it weren't.

We are basically arguing about this:

- Should a preamp be designed as flat as possible

I don't know what conversation you have been in all ths time, but it's not unitil the last round of exchanges that this even came up.

What started all this and what got me correcting you is when you came in claiming that there was no difference in sound between preamps, that what I - and every other engineer in the world - "perceived" as a difference was psychoillusionary, not acoustic, and I told you to take the needle out of your arm before you post. It had *nothing* to do with whether circuits should or should not be flat, but only with the fact that they are, in reality, not flat, and any AE who is worth his or her salt can empirically and objectively hear the difference between them.

Thank you for wasting our time.

Good luck with your EE endeavors. Get out and actually listen to and enjoy the fruits of your endeavors. For without that, even the perfect circuit is meaningless.

G.

 

[countrylac]

Bryank, I moved from a Eurodesk to a 1202 VLZ Pro a few years ago and I could tell an instant difference. If money is an issue which is the case for some of us and you need something better now I would suggest you get the VLZ Pro. It will only cost you around $200 to get one. It will cost you atleast $500 or more to get a 12 channel Onyx. The Onyx is a big step up from the VLZ Pro so if you can go a head and get that. Also if you do get the VLZ Pro I would suggest that you not buy a stand alone preamp in the range of the DMP3 because the difference won't be that great. Just continue to save your money.

 

[bryank]

thank you countrylac,

after all that was said and done here, i think the topic got "just a little" off-topic. Im trying to get away from the behringer, and get another mixer that has a better sound. I just figured to go with Mackie cause its a trusted name, and it used in the studios as well. but if anyone has any other suggestions for mixers with great pres, please do tell. Im trying to keep the budget around the same as the Mackie VLZ Pro series.

i really dont want a MIC pre by itself, cause i kinda need a mixer for recording a whole band.