Yamaha Mg24/14FX or Mackie 1604-VLZ Pro

[drummersteve]

im stuck in a situation...which to buy? the yamaha mg24/14 or the mackie 6104-vlz pro? mackie has brilliant pre's, 8 direct outs, yamaha has onboard fx, yamaha considerably cheaper, many more factors which i cant be bothered to list. what is everyones view on this subject?

 

[Outlaws]

This might sound stupid and wastefull, but the best thing you could do would probably be just look at what you think you need, do buy the one with that, then after you use it for a while you will really start to understand what you really need and don't need. Then the next time you will more than likely get exactly what you will need and be happy for a very long time.

...or hit up Guitar Center and get one for 30 days and return it for the other. Then return and get the other if it was a better item.

 

[Cyanide-Depende]

I use a Yamaha 24/14fx for most of my live work, IU use the groups to send a separate monitor mix and I use the sends for outboard effect, and TRS I/O's on the channels for outbboard gates/compressors, and occasionally I use the onboard Effects, theyre nice effects, and alot of them I cant get from my outboard gear, but I like the reverb i get from my rack better.

The only downfall is that I have had an instance whyere I ran out of channels, Looking back, I think I should have saved up a little more gone with the 32/14FX

Its also alot lighter than the mackie. Overall I think mackie stuff is over priced for what it is, and the yamaha is a really nice board, Nicer than the mackie IMO

Hope that helped a little

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

im stuck in a situation...which to buy?

For what?

The Mackie will have cleaner sound and more solid construction, but the Yamaha will have warmer coloration and be easier on the pocketbook.

Pick the tool that fits the job.

G.

 

[FALKEN]

The Mackie will have cleaner sound and more solid construction,

I might disagree with that one, although admittedly I have never used a mackie. But when I think of mackie I think of harsh tones. And then there are the horror stories about them falling apart and that their tech support takes forever. I would think the yomama would have cleaner sound and more solid construction. but like I said I don't have experience with the Mackie, this is just hearsay.

I hated my MG24 when I first got it. Over time I have learned that using the pads is a necessity. This increased the headroom a ton and now it is actually useable. The preamps suck ass but the line faders seem pretty transparent. I would take it over an ITB mix any day of the week.

However, the marketing lit is total horseshit. They market it as having 4 stereo busses. This is bull. It has 4 mono busses that can be panned.

Also, the group sends aren't actually "balanced". They will pass a balanced signal, but if you feed them with an unbalanced signal that is what you will get out. At least that is what it seems like....I get a lot of noise when using the group outs to insert a compressor or something. I feed it with an unbalanced tape machine, so I suspect that the group outputs arent actually "balanced"...I think it is the path that is balanced. But once again this is only speculation.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I might disagree with that one, although admittedly I have never used a mackie. But when I think of mackie I think of harsh tones. And then there are the horror stories about them falling apart and that their tech support takes forever. I would think the yomama would have cleaner sound and more solid construction. but like I said I don't have experience with the Mackie, this is just hearsay.

This is where spoken vocabulary and personal perception can fail us. Someone used to have the sig line that said "Talking about sound is like dancing about architecture." I have used Mackies everywhere from the broadcast editing suite to movie location recording to the project studio to live band gigs, and have used Yamaha in live band gigs and project studio applications as well.

Now, I'll admit that this is only subjective opinion - as by definition it only can be - but the property for which I use as the term "clean" I think is the same property for which you use the term "harsh". As I said in my original post, I personally find the Yammy to be "warmer" sounding, which can in some instances be describing the opposite of "harsh", and I think maybe that is what you are hearing in the Yammy. To my ears (which I'm not saying are better), that "warmth" is a coloration that, while it can sound pleasing, is not delivering the transaprency I would like from my mixer. The Mackie, OTOH, does not round off the harshness the same way the Yammy does, it is more transparent in the regard that it does not add the warmth or smoothness that the Yammy does.

It's largely a matter of preference, I suppose, but I personally take true harshness over false warmth, as it gives me a more accurate picture of what I'm actually pumping in. Others say with equal insistance that they have no need for the truth, they'd rather have the warm coloration. I think maybe that's where you're at. And that's not wrong, just different.

With regards to construction and reliability of the Mackies, as with any brand, it varies somewhat depending upon the model, but I will say with my last dying breath that the 16-series Mackies are built like shik brithouses. One could run over a 1604 with an SUV and it would still work fine. I also know a couple of folks who have been using their 32*8s for in-studio and live location work for several years with nary a problem.

I will say that their trim pot contacts have a tendancy to oxidize a bit on the fast side if you don't use them often, and they need replacing more often than they need cleaning when that happens, and that is a weak point, I believe. But then again nobody's perfect.

I'm not saying that Mackie is the be-all and end-all of mixers, not by a long shot. But my experience with them in a number of demanding and rugged pro disciplines has been nothing but positive other than the trim pot thing. And the Yammys are nice too, but I feel there is are reasons why they are budget mixers; they are not as accurate in their sound, IMHO, and while I see them used on the road and have used them on the road, I wouldn't want to place my trust in them in less-than-control-room conditions more than I would the Mackies because they just don't have the same solid feel of construction to them to me. I don't see the Mackies as being overpriced for what you get at all, they are more expensive because they are more expensive to build.

G.

 

[FALKEN]

To the OP: You should take SS Glen's advice because he has experience with both units.

I especially like this comment:

but the property for which I use as the term "clean" I think is the same property for which you use the term "harsh". As I said in my original post, I personally find the Yammy to be "warmer" sounding, which can in some instances be describing the opposite of "harsh", and I think maybe that is what you are hearing in the Yammy. To my ears (which I'm not saying are better), that "warmth" is a coloration that, while it can sound pleasing, is not delivering the transaprency I would like from my mixer. The Mackie, OTOH, does not round off the harshness the same way the Yammy does, it is more transparent in the regard that it does not add the warmth or smoothness that the Yammy does.

But I have to question this:

It's largely a matter of preference, I suppose, but I personally take true harshness over false warmth, as it gives me a more accurate picture of what I'm actually pumping in. Others say with equal insistance that they have no need for the truth, they'd rather have the warm coloration. I think maybe that's where you're at. And that's not wrong, just different.

I thought one man's "harsh" was another man's "warmth"?? What happened?? Now, all of a sudden, the Mackie is "true harshness" and the yamaha is "false warmth". what is this???

furthermore, do you think yamaha actually spent time trying to design a circuit that sounded "warm"? that is what I get the impression of when I think of "false warmth". Like they are faking it. I don't understand???

Maybe I shouldn't have said "harsh". Maybe what I meant was "thin". Would this also be a "true", or 'uncolored' representation of the audio signal?

With regards to construction and reliability of the Mackies, as with any brand, it varies somewhat depending upon the model, but I will say with my last dying breath that the 16-series Mackies are built like shik brithouses. One could run over a 1604 with an SUV and it would still work fine. I also know a couple of folks who have been using their 32*8s for in-studio and live location work for several years with nary a problem.

Truth be told, I was referring to the 24/8-bus. Check out the feedback on MF. It's full of horror stories.

Honestly, the Mackie is probably a better mixer. But I was afraid of it failing so I went with the yomama. But your post sounds like I'm watching Bill O'Reily.

 

[B_rad]

SSglen is right on. You should listen to him. Falken, at the end of you flame you say yourself the mackie is a better mixer, which it is.

 

[peopleperson]

If it's any help in deciding, I work in a store that sells both. I've had to have plenty of VLZ's repaired, but haven't seen a single MG board of any size with a single problem whatsoever.

 

[FALKEN]

SSglen is right on. You should listen to him. Falken, at the end of you flame you say yourself the mackie is a better mixer, which it is.

hold on....I didn't flame anybody. I said at the beginning of the post that glen is probably right. I just wanted to direct the OP to some of the research that found when I asked myself the same question. As to why more VLZ's come in than MG's...the VLZ has been around longer.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I thought one man's "harsh" was another man's "warmth"?? What happened???

I actually meant just the opposite . I was saying that "harsh" and "warm" can and are often considered opposite. Maybe if I switched the word "harsh" with the word "cold"...or, indeed perhaps, as you point out, even with the word "thin". While if one puts a fine point on it, the adjectives "harsh", "thin", and "cold" don't really mean the same thing, that all point to a similar side of the color spectrum, whereas "warm", "fat", and "smooth" tend to point to the other side.

My point was twofold: 1) that, in my experience, the Yamahas tended to the "warm" side and the Mackies tended to the "cold" side, and 2) That the "coldness" in the Mackie was actually (IMO, and it's sa subjective one) a more accurate representation of the real world. By that second one I mean that, to me, anyway, the Mackies seemed to be a bit faster and more accurate in handling attacks and transients, whereas the Yamahas seemed to smooth and slew them out a bit. I have no technical data to back this up, just the impression I got out of the sound. This alleged "smoothing" of the Yammies contributes to the "warmth" in a very analog way.

And I admit and agree that many will find this warming to be a far more pleasing - a less harsh - sound. I don't mind that sound so much myself; I don't dislike the Yammies. However, if I want a warmer analog pre that colors like that, I want it in a stand-alone pre that I can take in or out of the signal chain. I personally don't find that as desireable in a mixer, where I want it to be more accurate than anything else so I am not forced to use the coloration that it provides.

Again, this is just one point of view. There could very well be - and probaby are - others who have expereince with both who would disagree with me as far as which sound the would prefer. If one re-reads my original post, I never said or intended to say that one was "better". I said only that the Mackie was "cleaner" and the Yamaha was "warmer" and that one should choose which one of those works better for them. Personally I thought that both "cleaner" and "warmer" were positive-sounding adjectives.

furthermore, do you think yamaha actually spent time trying to design a circuit that sounded "warm"? that is what I get the impression of when I think of "false warmth". Like they are faking it.

No, that's not what I meant at all. I have no idea whether they purposely engineered for warmth or they just designed the best circuit they could for the intended price point. I know Yamaha, and I know they did not purposely cut any corners, they are a quality company.

I was just saying that I thought the Mackie sound was a more accurate or, if you will, "honest" representation than the Yamaha was, and that it's in the engineering of this incremental increase in accuracy that the increase in cost is justified (it's harder to design.) Frankly, "honest" is not always considered a good thing, many people do not like an "honest" sound, because to their tastes it does indeed sound too thin/cold/harsh, and to them something like the Mackie is indeed understandably overpriced.

Truth be told, I was referring to the 24/8-bus.

Now on that we are in complete agreement. That's why I specifically mentioned that it depends upon the model, and that I specifically defended the 16-series and the 32*8. I don't know what they do different in the 24, but the couple of them (and it's only been two in my life) that I did have to work with were noisy bastards that just did not have the same feel as its big and little brothers.

Honestly, the Mackie is probably a better mixer. But I was afraid of it failing so I went with the yomama. But your post sounds like I'm watching Bill O'Reily.

Hahaha, I would NEVER accuse anybody of that .

I have heard a lot of horror stories on this board, and I acknowledge poepleperson's post re the repairs. I'm not sure how to comment on those other than to say that I have been in the company of Mackies for many years and have seen them used (and used them) on big-budget movie sets, in television stations, by Emmy-award winning editors, folks who use them for live recording, and in project studios of many sizes, and to a person, every one of them has swore by their Mackie and would never change except for a much larger budget desk.

Now before somebody beats on me, NO I do NOT believe Mackies are high-end in any regard whatsoever. There's a lot of stuff out there a lot better than Mackie. All I'm saying is that in my orbit of experience, the legend of Mackie unreliability simply has not shown up, and in fact Mackie has had nothing but a positive reputation. I can't explain the disconnect between my experience and the experience of folks like PeoplePerson, I can only say that it exists. As is usually the case, the real truth is probably somewhere in the middle .

G.

 

[FALKEN]

I actually meant just the opposite . I was saying that "harsh" and "warm" can and are often considered opposite. Maybe if I switched the word "harsh" with the word "cold"...or, indeed perhaps, as you point out, even with the word "thin". While if one puts a fine point on it, the adjectives "harsh", "thin", and "cold" don't really mean the same thing, that all point to a similar side of the color spectrum, whereas "warm", "fat", and "smooth" tend to point to the other side.

I know that. I was trying to make your choice of language even more exagerrated and "one sided".

 

[Bulls Hit]

I had a Yamaha MG12. I didn't like the preamps, and they sounded particularly thin and brittle when cranked. The effects might be handy at a gig, but I'm not sure I'd want to record with them. Never had any problems with the unit though. The firepod is much better for my recording requirements

 

[cusebassman]

I have an MG/32, and Im not a huge fan of the pre's. I use outboard to record to ADAT, and then run the tape decks through the board.

As Falken said, you definitely need to have the pads engaged. Im not sure what the I/O difference is between the +4 output of the ADAT decks and the line-inputs on the MG/32, but without the pads engaged, you could very well damage the circuitry of the board (or at least was what feel I got from it).

As for the sound of the mixer otherwise, I do get that sense of warmth that Glen talked about. Perhaps he was only referring to the preamps on that guy, but the rest of the path seems to add a smoothing-over effect, even when running in through the line inputs. Its certainly not a bad thing, and whatever I've mixed in my time recording with that desk has come out sounding nice, as far as I can tell

For gigging, though? Buy a nice, heavy-duty case for the Yamaha, as the knobs and faders will not stand any sort of rough treatment. I have a case for it now, but on the first gig I took it to, I was carrying it gently under one arm, and two of the stereo faders grazed the side of my shirt, and bent ever so slightly. Either way you should have a case for your mixer, as there are a lot of fun little knobs and levers to snap off, but just a word of warning, as others have also said about the Yamaha's build quality... you get what you pay for, I suppose