Pre Amps in Mackie 1604 series

  • Thread starter Thread starter dennyc765
  • Start date Start date
D

dennyc765

New member
How does the quality of the pres in a Mackie Mixer (i.e. 1604 cr) compares to the quality of say the M-Audio DMP3? Have any recommendations for pre amp in $250-$400 range for two channels?

dennyc765
 
those older mackie VLZs are great.. I/we have several nationally released albums recorded with those and a avalon channel for overdubs. Dont second guess yourself on those

There is always a $1000-$2000 channel that will sound marginally better but you are just fine with those.

I 'heard' the M-audios are focusrites and if thats accurate id prefer the mackie pres given the choice
 
Buy and old Mackie for pres then?

So in terms of "bang for the buck" buying a Mackie would give me the best for the money right. I'm recording with a YAMAHA AW1600 (8 inputs xlr/line) digital machine. Any suggestions for best connections?

Never heard the term "focusrites" but seems like you mean it must be used PRECISELY with the correct settings.

dennyc765
 
Last edited:
dennyc765 said:
Never heard the term "focusrites" but seems like you mean it must be used PRECISELY with the correct settings.
Click to expand...
LMAO... some might say that :D
 
focusrite is a brand of preamp. I was stating that I thought the M-audio preamps were made by focusrite. Just what ive heard, not 100% sure.


Not sure what you are recording but if you got ahold of a simple, lowcost DBX compressor and put it in front of that VLZ preamp you can get a really fat, thick signal to your recording device. In other words maximize the preamp potential without getting into digital distortion
 
dennyc765 said:
I'm recording with a YAMAHA AW1600 (8 inputs xlr/line) digital machine. Any suggestions for best connections?
Click to expand...


The mackie 1604 has 8 direct outs so i'd go :

mic cable into channel 1 on mackie board.

route the signal from channel 1 from the mackie channel 1 direct out into your yamaha's channel 1.

I'd turn down the gain on the yamaha channels to 1/4 -to- 1/3rd the way up max and theb and boost the signal using the mackie preamp. In otherwords use as little of the yamaha gain as you can get away with


Possibly try the compressor in front of the mackie for channel by channel overdubs
 
wall of noise 9 said:
I'd turn down the gain on the yamaha channels to 1/4 -to- 1/3rd the way up max and theb and boost the signal using the mackie preamp. In otherwords use as little of the yamaha gain as you can get away with
Click to expand...
Right idea... but the best way to keep the Yamaha pres impact down is to crank you're mackie output and adjust you're final gain at the yahama input...
 
wall of noise 9 said:
I 'heard' the M-audios are focusrites and if thats accurate id prefer the mackie pres given the choice
Click to expand...

It's not accurate. Someone is confusing M-Audio with Mbox.



denny, the DMP3 pres are, IMO, slightly better than the Mackie VLZ pres, but that is subjective. If you need more channels and routing options get the mixer. If you want two good clean channels cheap, get the DMP3.
 
It sounds like were talking about the older, pre VLZ pres. If so, they're still OK, just not quite up to spec with the VLZ series pres. If you're not needing to get excessive amounts of gain out of them, like for a ribbon mic, or a Shure SM7, then you'll be happy enough with them. The DMP3 is so inexpensive that you can pick one up later after you gain the utility of having a mixer. The DMP3 is a fantastic little stereo preamp for the money, definitely worth adding to your setup. I don't think I've ever heard anyone knock it, even the gear sluts have to give it it's due.
 
CR1604 is not a VLZ unless it's a CR1604-VLZ or 1604-VLZPRO.

I have an original CR1604. I wouldn't use it for recording. Live sound, sure. You can get them cheap and you can add an automation board if desired. I wouldn't use it for recording. Significant high frequency roll-off and somewhat noisy even at moderate gain.
 
I think the best way is to just use the yamaha pre's or buy a different interface w/o pre's and use the Mackie.


The whole idea of using the mackie pre's because they are better and then running them through the yamaha pre's seems at best counter productive.
There is just no good way to do it. Cranking the mackie pre's into turned down yamaha pre's sounds like a great way to get distortion and chaining the the two pre's together at low levels sounds like a good way to raise your noise floor and kill your usable dynamc range while combining the worst qualities of both pre's.

Buy a used delta or echo layla 24/96 (preferrably the layla) for a couple hundred dollars and use the mackie or what ever pre you want.

If by chance you are looking for different pre's to solve tonal problems with you recordings look elsewhere. Chances are 95% that there are other far greater issues than your pre's, like your room etc. IMHO.


F.S.
 
Freudian Slip said:
I think the best way is to just use the yamaha pre's or buy a different interface w/o pre's and use the Mackie.
Click to expand...

I agree. When you run the signal through a Mackie 1604 and then into the Yamaha you are putting an awful lot of electronics in the path. I'd keep it simpler than that. Use the Yamaha pres or the Mackie into line level inputs on the Yamaha, if possible.

Be sure to read the manual on the Yamaha, as many budget mixers route the line inputs through the preamps. If you use the Mackie pres what you want is to go into a line level input on the Yamaha that is *not* routed through the preamps.
 
Freudian Slip said:
Buy a used delta or echo layla 24/96 (preferrably the layla) for a couple hundred dollars and use the mackie or what ever pre you want.

If by chance you are looking for different pre's to solve tonal problems with you recordings look elsewhere. Chances are 95% that there are other far greater issues than your pre's, like your room etc. IMHO.
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. If the O.P. is using CR1604 pres, they are seriously hurting the sound. Pres have improved a lot in 16 years. (The CR1604 was released in 1991.)

I used to use a CR1604 and wondered why all my old recordings sounded dull and lifeless. In the process of setting up to record drums, I bought an M-Audio FW1814 and a Peavey PV8.

It was like night and day. Everything sounded dramatically better even using the same mics and same interface in the same room. I haven't used the CR1604 for anything since. It sits on a shelf, a reminder to never again choose an older product merely because it costs less....
 
dgatwood said:
I couldn't disagree more. If the O.P. is using CR1604 pres, they are seriously hurting the sound. Pres have improved a lot in 16 years. (The CR1604 was released in 1991.)

I used to use a CR1604 and wondered why all my old recordings sounded dull and lifeless. In the process of setting up to record drums, I bought an M-Audio FW1814 and a Peavey PV8.

It was like night and day. Everything sounded dramatically better even using the same mics and same interface in the same room. I haven't used the CR1604 for anything since. It sits on a shelf, a reminder to never again choose an older product merely because it costs less....
Click to expand...

Ya that's why everyone hates those old tube preamps ;)

We'll agree to disagree that a decent recording can't be made with 16 year old pre-amps :rolleyes:

I think you need to read the thread a little better before you decide you can't disagree more with me.

F.S.
 
There's 16 year old Mackie CR-1604 pres and then there are 16 year old Neve pres. The age really has nothing to do with it. Of course a good recording can be made with 16 year old pres, it's just a question of which ones.

The CR-1604 pres would certainly not be my first choice, but if that's what the original poster has to work with then he'll just have to make the best of it. I personally would bypass the mixer and use the pres in the Yamaha.
 
I bet my 1985 Tascam M600 preamps smoke all of the ones so far listed...besides the avalon. Don't judge by age, it's a horrible benchmark. I would never use two preamps however great either one was in series. Pick one and go with it, if you can't avoid it turn one all the way down.
 
jamacian said:
I bet my 1985 Tascam M600 preamps smoke all of the ones so far listed...besides the avalon. Don't judge by age.
Click to expand...

Now that's just plain crazy talk :eek: :D

F.S.
 
SonicAlbert said:
. If you use the Mackie pres what you want is to go into a line level input on the Yamaha that is *not* routed through the preamps.
Click to expand...

Bingo! Thats really the best solution if there is that option! Why didn't I think of that??! Excellent. =)
 
jamacian said:
I bet my 1985 Tascam M600 preamps smoke all of the ones so far listed...besides the avalon. Don't judge by age, it's a horrible benchmark.
Click to expand...

No, it's a great benchmark for consumer grade pres. With very, very few exceptions, we are not talking about old models of high-end pres when we discuss pres built into most typical audio mixers or other audio gear. The exceptions would be really high end models of mixers and similar (of which your M600 is a good example). That's not the norm, though. That's very much the exception.

Most audio gear with embedded pres typically use the nicest parts they can get for a couple of bucks per channel. Even a Burr Brown design costs only about three bucks in bulk (pots, power, case, knobs, jacks, etc. not included in that price). $2.90 for the chip plus a couple of resistors. And that's for chips that are at or near the high end as far as consumer pres go. Consumer gear goes down from there. :)

Because the price of low-cost op amp chips drops as better tech comes along, the quality that you can get at a given price point improves almost linearly over time. Thus, I can say with confidence that low-cost op amps built fifteen years ago (and, by association, most gear with built-in pres from that era) almost universally suck compared with all but the cheapest preamp hardware still built today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top