Mic Preamp vs. Mixer

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveO
  • Start date Start date
DaveO

DaveO

New member
I've been using a simple 4-track setup (Tascam 414, SM58, 2 SM57's , guitar multi-effects pedal that I even for vocs and other intruments) for about a year and would like ot make better sounding recordings. After looking at various web sites I thought my next step would be a mic preamp and was considering an ART Tube MP, Dual MP, or Behringer Ultragain Pro Tube. I didn't really want to buy one for each mic (I record up to 3 tracks simultaneously) and thought about buying a decent small mixer (maybe Behringer MX802A?) instead. Can anyone tell me a) would this setup work about as well as preamps for each mic, b) could also be put to good use during mixdown, and c) wouldn't be a waste of money if I want to upgrade my setup in the future. Any suggestions on good value preamps and/or small mixers and whether my idea is a good one?
 
you have the right idea - while a tube preamp can add a certain warmth to a mic, a mixer will offer you much greater flexibility. i highly recommend the mackie mixers. i am using one with my roland VS workstation, and the noise floor is absolutely silent. the pre's in the mackie are pro quality, and nice quality equipment will grow with you as you upgrade your mics and the rest of your system.
 
Thanks for confirming that idea - now I have some followup questions. For one thing, I need to keep to a pretty tight budget (under $300 if possible). On the other hand, even though I only record as a part-time hobby with some friends, we're trying to produce a CD of originals so I want to get the best price/performance I can. Will a bottom end mixer from Behringer or Mackie help me "do it right the first time"? Any opinions on a Samson Mixpad 9 or 12? The price is right but I never really heard anyone comment (good or bad) on their performance Also, what kinds of things could I do with the extra channels and features I'd get by stepping up a level or two from the bottom end (that may sound like a stupid question but I'm just getting into home recording and want to soak in all I can before I commit to a purchase)? Thanks alot.
 
Thanks for confirming that idea - now I have some followup questions. For one thing, I need to keep to a pretty tight budget (under $300 if possible). On the other hand, even though I only record as a part-time hobby with some friends, we're trying to produce a CD of originals so I want to get the best price/performance I can. Will a bottom end mixer from Behringer or Mackie help me "do it right the first time"? Any opinions on a Samson Mixpad 9 or 12? The price is right but I never really heard anyone comment (good or bad) on their performance Also, what kinds of things could I do with the extra channels and features I'd get by stepping up a level or two from the bottom end (that may sound like a stupid question but I'm just getting into home recording and want to soak in all I can before I commit to a purchase)? Thanks alot.
 
I tend to think that the mixer route is more up your ally. First of all, you will get real XLR inputs, and a variety of options, second it will probably cost less than buying good preamps. Now about what mixer to buy, while most people swear by the mackies, I work at a dealer of Berringer and Mackie, and I can honestly say the Berringers are MUCH better mixers for the money. The mackies and Berringers are virtually identical except that berringer has better preamps. The samson mixers are ok, but they tend to be a little bit noisy. The Berringer mixers are what I would recomend without hesitation. If you really want a nice mixer and preamp in one, (probably for in the future) I would recommend the SPIRIT FX series. They use the best preamps on the market and include a lexicon signal processor internally. (sorry aboutu the tangent). Anyway, I would say get the berringer and you won't be disappointed.

--mike
 
Mike, I was very interested when I read that you felt that Behringer's are better then Mackie's - I haven't heard too many people say that - especially since the Behringer's tend to be less expensive. Would you care to elaborate on that? I am thinking of buying one of these two mixers and extra info might help.
 
I would definitely agree that the Beringher pres are better than the "old school" Mackie's. I don't think they can even touch the new Mackie's with the XDR pres in them. To my ears they sound three times better then the standalone ART pres and almost as good if not as good as the JoeMEEK studio channel, which for my money and music is the best of the low to mid priced preamp market. I don't think you can pick one up for under 300 bones, mind you, so go with whichever of the low priced mixers/preamps make YOUR fur rise...Take Care and Keep Breathing....Dave
 
jnorman,
why do you use a Mackie mixer with a VS?
I have a VS1680, and my only complaint has been the lack of XLR inputs (only 2) so I have to buy ART TubePacs to extend the range to 4.
What functionality do you gain in the process?
PH
 
Why a mixer with a 1680? I record full bands, and with only 8 channels of record at a time, I need to submix toms to gain a record channel many times. Kick, snare top, snare bottom, 2 rack toms, floor tom 2 overheads = 8 mics. submix the toms, and gain a channel for bass, submix the 2 snare mics and get a channel for a reference track (scratch vocals+ other cue instruments). I also get the capability to provide multiple headphone mixes with effects and still track dry.
 
phat - i use the mackie with my vs for two reasons. it gives me enough phantom-powered xlr inputs to run the mics i need, and it serves as the locus of my entire system - i have the roland, my tascam tape machine, a cd-player, and a jv-1080 synth all plugged into it, and run powered monitors from it. having the tape machine in the tape in-outs laets me easily do a quick tape for customers, and having a cd player in the same system as the roland lets me A/B my work with commercial CD's.
 
stay away from beheringer and mackie if you love sound quality.

:laughings:
amonte said:
Mike, I was very interested when I read that you felt that Behringer's are better then Mackie's - I haven't heard too many people say that - especially since the Behringer's tend to be less expensive. Would you care to elaborate on that? I am thinking of buying one of these two mixers and extra info might help.
Click to expand...
there is no way that behringer has better pre amps than mackie. behringer is not bad for the price you buy it for. but i will never again buy it. there is noise, to0 much! mackie on the other hand has no noise feed even when turned up high. if you plan on doing something of decent quailty with your sound stay away from both,even stunning mics sound basic on the beheringer. bit better on the mackie. but not of wow sound quality. no no no no .stay away. no thank you.
mackie is not far from beheringer. your pre amps are the most important thing you can ever invest on. dont buy this if you have big dreams. it will not be wise. one cannot record with beh or mackie. just not good enough for a decent demo. and besides today we have great software , even a basic home studio can rival the best studio out there. think yamaha. there eqing is far better. and there pre amps sound even better than a top mackie. but then again live sound is a go ahead for beh and mackie even sennheiser is an exccellent choice for mixers. remember pre amps are the puppies we should be focusing on . i think in a budget range the yahama runs better softer and stronger pre amps for live and recordings. go pro go yahama. good luck.
 
I would not get Behringer on principal (Chinese knock-off of Mackie).

I also do not think the cheaper Yamahas are better than Mackie. I've owned both.

Good recordings can be made on either.
 
mshilarious said:
11 years later, the OP thanks you!
Click to expand...
This thread is either #1 or #2 in archeological resurrection age. We had one a couple of months ago from 1999 as well, but I forget the month it was from, so I'm not sure which one's the winner.

And I just love how the Mackie-bashing never ends in this forum by all the amateurs that haven't worked with all the Mackies used by all the TV and movie production companies out there. I'll agree that Mackie would not be my first choice in a recording studio, but when they're good enough for Superstation WGN-TV, Paul Shaffer, Jim Henson Productions, Discreet Logic and many others to literally buy and use by the hundreds for daily use in broadcast and movie production, yeah, they really suck big time.:rolleyes:

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
This thread is either #1 or #2 in archeological resurrection age. We had one a couple of months ago from 1999 as well, but I forget the month it was from, so I'm not sure which one's the winner.

And I just love how the Mackie-bashing never ends in this forum by all the amateurs that haven't worked with all the Mackies used by all the TV and movie production companies out there. I'll agree that Mackie would not be my first choice in a recording studio, but when they're good enough for Superstation WGN-TV, Paul Shaffer, Jim Henson Productions, Discreet Logic and many others to literally buy and use by the hundreds for daily use in broadcast and movie production, yeah, they really suck big time.:rolleyes:

G.
Click to expand...

I'm an Amature. I own a Mackie 802-VLZ3. Sure, it may not be one of those mixers those guys are using but it sure seems quiet. Only thing I don't understand is why the channel mutes don't mute the selected channel. Maybe I am doing it wrong and need to read the instructions. Another thing seems to be when I mute a channel, the peak meter is active and vice versa. Pretty strange. Again, maybe I need to read the manual.


They say it's tough and built like a tank. Well, IF my unit is defective, I could hurl it off a ..... well, watch this: YouTube - The Mackie MixBusters: 802-VLZ3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top