Mackie VLZ vs Standalone mic pre
- Thread starter ashulman
- Start date
jet-rocker
New member
The Mackie pres really aren't all that bad. I know that it is in vogue to trash them these days. But they are serviceable and cheap.
It really depends on the 'outboard' pres you compare them too. Way better than pieces of junk like presonus blue tube, etc...
Plus you get the useful routing/monitoring features of a mixer thrown in.
If you don't need a mixer/need less channels and have a little more $$, The RNP or Sytek would certainly be 'better'.
I've got a MP-1NV--which is definetly better than the pres in my 1202... But I've gotten plenty of use out of the Mackies too.
-Jtt
It really depends on the 'outboard' pres you compare them too. Way better than pieces of junk like presonus blue tube, etc...
Plus you get the useful routing/monitoring features of a mixer thrown in.
If you don't need a mixer/need less channels and have a little more $$, The RNP or Sytek would certainly be 'better'.
I've got a MP-1NV--which is definetly better than the pres in my 1202... But I've gotten plenty of use out of the Mackies too.
-Jtt
The Mackie VLZ is a home recording standard. The new Spirit M-Series (from Soundcraft) is getting great reviews and many who have reported here prefer the preamps over the Mackie. They also say the eq is MUCH better.
But unless you need a mixer, I would also opt for the stand alone pre like the RNP or even the DMP3.
But unless you need a mixer, I would also opt for the stand alone pre like the RNP or even the DMP3.
invisiblemute
New member
The Spirit stuff looks much better. Never tried one. But it's also considerably more expensive. I think the M12 is about the same price at the VLZ16 (could be wrong) but it does add an A/D converter. Just me but I'm getting away from the all-in-one pieces. It's difficult to find something decent that does it all without paying for it dearly. It's generally cheaper to get things in pieces and you can custom configure those piece to suit your tastes. Those 100mm faders are a nice compared to the dinky short ones on the Mackies.
chessparov
New member
ashulman said:
In a home recording environment? Is the space acoustically treated? Is the soundcard the cheap kind with high noise floor and low headroom? Do you have a decent way/environment to monitor the mix? Do you know enough about mic placement?
If you don't have all that other stuff straightened out yet, I'd say the difference between Mackie pre and an outboard is subtle enough that you can make bigger difference spending your money elsewhere. You'd be much better off just getting your home recording going with a Mackie board (since you can use it for other things like monitoring and mixing) and figuring out what else needs improvement in your recording chain, environment, technique along with your playing/vocal techniques.
crosstudio
New member
morten:
you tell me. record the same piece using both and tell us which one you think is best. just do your best to assure that the only difference in the recording chain between the two recordings is the mackie and the focuserite. it would be an even better test if you split the signal so that the same recording take goes into both at the same time.
ashulman:
i used the mic-pre on my mackie for years until i got the fmr audio rnp. the di isn't much different between the two units, but the RNP mic-pre is considerably better.
you tell me. record the same piece using both and tell us which one you think is best. just do your best to assure that the only difference in the recording chain between the two recordings is the mackie and the focuserite. it would be an even better test if you split the signal so that the same recording take goes into both at the same time.
ashulman:
i used the mic-pre on my mackie for years until i got the fmr audio rnp. the di isn't much different between the two units, but the RNP mic-pre is considerably better.
jet-rocker
New member
Assuming that you are recording to a soundcard--I'd send the RNP's outputs directly to the soundcard.
I'd plug the soundcards output into the mackie (I use the tape in), for monitoring purposes.
-Jtt
I'd plug the soundcards output into the mackie (I use the tape in), for monitoring purposes.
-Jtt
ashulman said:
When I record, I use a patch bay to split micpre output.
One goes to sound card or AD converter of your choice.
The other goes to a mixer line input to be mixed with soundcard outputs and MIDI equipments for monitoring.
It's the same with Mackie pre. You should split INSERT send which is the micpre output. One goes to soundcard. The other goes back to the mixer. In this case, you don't need anything external to do this. Plug in a connector to the first click, connect the other end of this cable to the soundcard input (Mackie manual explains this with pictures).
Substitute "harddisk recorder input" for "soundcard input" if that's more applicable.
invisiblemute said:
Actually, that's not true.
VLZ1202 - 4 mono, 4 stereo = $399
M4 - 4 mono, 4 stereo, 4 stereo returns = $439
VLZ1402 - 6 mono, 4 stereo = $529
M8 - 8 mono, 4 stereo, 4 stereo returns = $549
VLZ1642 - 8 mono, 2 stereo mic/line, 2 stereo line = 849
M12 - 12 mono, 4 stereo, 4 stereo returns = $679
invisiblemute
New member
Hmm... upon further investigation it seems like the Spirit M series and Mackie VLZ have similar features but some that are unique different and make for pretty big differences in application.
For example, the M series lacks sub out unless I am missing something. This is something pretty important to me because I use the sub out assignment on my Mackie to route one of sixteen channels to my Layla which only does 8 in at once. I suppose one could (ab)use the aux send on the M but it doesn't seem to be designed for that. Also why are the aux returns RCA?! -- physical real estate? That seems incredibly weird to me. With balanced effects is it possible to return a balanced signal on RCA?
But if the EQ on the Ms are as good as people say, that alone may be worth it. The Mackie EQ though decent (haven't used much else for comparison) sound plain and sterile to me. I find it hard to really dial in settings to subtlely tweak sounds especially voice. Admittedly that can be my short comings as an engineer.
Senior members please correct me if I'm wrong but the M series seems geared towards live use with flexible effects routing. But the Mackie may be better for home studios. Mackie even labels channels 9 to 16, "Track 1" to "Track 8" intended for us as 8 in/8 out multi-track setup. Seems like the fair comparison would be between the Mackie 1604VLZ and the Spirit FX16. But then the FX16 seems more like a live board with all the on board effects. I'm confused :/
For example, the M series lacks sub out unless I am missing something. This is something pretty important to me because I use the sub out assignment on my Mackie to route one of sixteen channels to my Layla which only does 8 in at once. I suppose one could (ab)use the aux send on the M but it doesn't seem to be designed for that. Also why are the aux returns RCA?! -- physical real estate? That seems incredibly weird to me. With balanced effects is it possible to return a balanced signal on RCA?
But if the EQ on the Ms are as good as people say, that alone may be worth it. The Mackie EQ though decent (haven't used much else for comparison) sound plain and sterile to me. I find it hard to really dial in settings to subtlely tweak sounds especially voice. Admittedly that can be my short comings as an engineer.
Senior members please correct me if I'm wrong but the M series seems geared towards live use with flexible effects routing. But the Mackie may be better for home studios. Mackie even labels channels 9 to 16, "Track 1" to "Track 8" intended for us as 8 in/8 out multi-track setup. Seems like the fair comparison would be between the Mackie 1604VLZ and the Spirit FX16. But then the FX16 seems more like a live board with all the on board effects. I'm confused :/
invisiblemute said:
I think it depends on which Spirit board you're comparing. Spirt has the M, FX, and E series (for this segment of the market). The M series has direct outs (for recording). You may be correct that the FX series may be more geared to live use. After all, it does have an effects processor. However, the M and E series are different boards, having different and, IMO, better or comparable features to the Mackie of its class. All of this from a Mackie user.
