Login / Register
 
Who has used Allen and Heath MixWizard?
New Reply
Subscribe
VTNate
Thread Starter
#1
6th July 2009
Old 6th July 2009
  #1
Gear interested
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Location: Vermont
Posts: 29

Thread Starter
VTNate is offline
Who has used Allen and Heath MixWizard?

I am on a pretty tight budget these days. Am getting by with Zenyx mixer now. I have been wanting a new mixer for awhile now and been planning to get the Allen & Heath Mixwizard (WZ3 16 input). I've been learning alot on these great forums as I look into recording gear. Need a new Digi interface but I think it's best to upgrade my mixer first because I will use it live. Hopeing the preamps and Eq on the mixer will be nice to have when I can get a Digi003. I've looked at the older Soundcraft stuff and also Yamaha mixers (MG series) as an alternative but I am still leaning toward the Mixwizard as something that will be great live and decent for recording also. Cheaper is better but maybe I can swing the 1K at most for a mixer.
If I do go for the Mixwiz I wonder about a couple things.
1. How will it fit in my Gator GRC rack case. I have a 10X8. The top fits a standard 19" mixer. Guy at local music store who owns one told me it will never fit in this size rack, but from what I can tell it should fit. I understand I will have to fold it in which will make the inputs a bit awkward. Anyone rackmounted one of these WZ3?

2. Should I get the newest version new $999.99? find it cheaper on ebay? get a b-stock for $750? If I go used I'd probably go for the older version because it's cheaper.

3. Can anyone compare the older version with the new? What I like about the new is the individual phantom power and I hear the effects are better. I assume the the preamps and eq will sound about the same unless it needs maintenance.

I've read what I can find on the Mixwiz, but any thoughts about it are welcome as well as any other suggestions. Needs to fit my rack, direct outs, FX are nice for live use. Thanks.
#2
6th July 2009
Old 6th July 2009
  #2
Gear addict
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 395

taperocket is offline
The preamps and eq's on the mixwizard are very nice. Go for a used one in good condition definitely. I don't think the effects will be great either way.
#3
6th July 2009
Old 6th July 2009
  #3
Lives for gear
 
GZsound's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,558

GZsound is offline
I realize this is just my .02, but I recently had a Mackie mixer die a horrible death and I needed a new rack mount 16 channel mixer in a hurry and on a budget.

I have used the Mixwiz and like it, also used Soundcraft FX16 and like them a little better.

However, I ended up buying a Yamaha MG206C.. It was $300 cheaper than the Mixwizard and it sounds great. Rack mountable and weighs just 13 pounds.

Plus it has eight channels of built in compression, which is my live sound world is very nice.

I searched the other day and found that Amazon.com had them for $489..

That's a steal.
__________________
Mark G.
#4
6th July 2009
Old 6th July 2009
  #4
Lives for gear
 
cavern's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Intight
Posts: 2,605

cavern is offline
it requires 19"x17" but it can stick out at the back if you got room.
great little board/ the effects are very usable for live..
the new one should be similar.
Attached Thumbnails
Who has used Allen and Heath MixWizard?-rack-002.jpg  
#5
6th July 2009
Old 6th July 2009
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: São Paulo/NYC
Posts: 1,230
My Recordings/Credits

Ricey is offline
Love mine.

VTNate
Thread Starter
#6
7th July 2009
Old 7th July 2009
  #6
Gear interested
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Location: Vermont
Posts: 29

Thread Starter
VTNate is offline
Thanks for the feedback. Sorry to go on so much here but I'm really obsessing on this mixer situation right now and I don't want to regret my purchase like I have with things in the past.

Sounds like people like their Mixwizards. Looks like I could use it in my rack without a problem, nice. I'm pretty sure I would love one too. My only concern is that it is so big and heavy and the cost. More inputs and stuff than I need but I could grow into it and I may need 16 inputs around the corner, who knows. I would go for the 12 input version, but I think it's the same size and only $100 cheaper. Not popular I guess so you can hardly find one used. Nice demo movie Ricey, thanks. Gives me good ideas.

GZsound-On the Yamaha MG206C, this is the one I was looking at. Saw one go used pretty cheap on ebay but I can't see one new for less than $600 + shipping. I like that it seems significantly smaller and lighter than the Mixwiz with most connections on top. Like the idea of the compression, -it works good for live? You use it for vocals? Other stuff? Would you miss it if gone and/or does it allow you to leave an external rack at home? Possible downsides I can see--
1. I think I would want the effects built in. Bringing a reverb rack would offset the weight savings.
2. No direct outs. There must be an advantage to having direct outs right? Obviously you would use these to multitrack a gig. Most would use these for useing the preamps for a DAW right? Can you achive the same effect using the insert or one of the aux sends? Direct outs balanced, auxes not?
3. 1 swept mid band eq vs. 2 on the mixwiz I think. Not huge but a + for A&H.

You used the A&H, Soundcraft and Yamaha. You like Soundcraft best I guess, looks like a nice board. Would you rather have the A&H over the Yamaha if they were the same price? You think the preamps are pretty comparable between A&H and Yamaha? If I went for the Yamaha board I think I would look for a used MG166CX. Less inputs but has the effects. Should be able to get one pretty cheap used and then save faster for new interface. Maybe upgrade it later if I needed to or get a nice channel strip instead for recording.
#7
7th July 2009
Old 7th July 2009
  #7
Gear Head
 
velopop's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 60

velopop is offline
I would caution you to examine the features found in the MixWizard.

It's an absolutely fantastic live board (six aux sends!) really nice preamps, great EQ section. I've used mine for numerous live gigs, no complaints.

BUT

For studio work? I'd say there are better choices- I'm not saying that you wouldn't get a great result depending upon your project, but consider this: you have no busses, and only two stereo returns for effects. The onboard effects are pretty much going to be relegated to live work. I certainly wouldn't recommend them for anything else. Maybe if you played around with them after downloading the effects program? Perhaps someone else here has input on what can be done with those, but it seems a bother, especially when you can add a Lexicon reverb unit for around $100 used. And then there's the question of monitoring playback, assuming you'll want to use outboard gear. I put up with that nonsense far too long using a Mackie 16ch. I have a Toft now.

You should be able to pick up that board new for under $900.00. Keep looking.

I keep mine in an SKB GigRack, the convenience of being able to keep everything but the snake hooked up well outweighs the price.

Doesn't A&H make a Zed model for around the same money? I think those would offer far more flexibility, mix-wise....ya gotta have busses!
#8
7th July 2009
Old 7th July 2009
  #8
Lives for gear
 
cavern's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Intight
Posts: 2,605

cavern is offline
before i had the mix wiz, i had an older yamaha mg-12 before they added the comp. don't know if the mg 206 has the same pre's but you would think so.
when i got the mix wiz, i noticed that the pre's were much better than in th mg-12. quite a difference really and the first thing i noticed is when we jammed in my basement, i could get a lot more volume before feedback and everything sounded bigger.

as for the effects, you can tweek them with the software and a midi cable. i use the delay from the a/h and an spx-990 for reverb.

for the money, the mg-12(under $400) served us well but you can't compare it to the mix wiz.
#9
7th July 2009
Old 7th July 2009
  #9
Gear interested
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 10

thevibesman is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by drbam View Post
Another huge limitation with the A&H Mixwizard is the lack of mute buttons on the channel strips (only PFL/solo).
The MixWizard WZ3 14:4:2 I just bought has mutes. I just looked at the pictures of all the other WZ3s on the website and it seems like they all have mutes as well. Perhaps this was true for older models, I don't know all the details on those, but the current generation WZ3 has mutes (but I do agree, couldn't imagine a mixer without them).

I've got to pack up my car and hit the road, but I do have some more thoughts on my new MixWizard I will share with you later. (I hadn't made my own account here yet because the search has been able to help me find most the answers I need, but I just noticed this comment I thought I should correct it, stay tuned for my detailed thoughts on the mixer, but the short version is: for the money, I think I made the best choice for my uses.)
#10
7th July 2009
Old 7th July 2009
  #10
Lives for gear
 
GZsound's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,558

GZsound is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTNate View Post
Thanks for the feedback. Sorry to go on so much here but I'm really obsessing on this mixer situation right now and I don't want to regret my purchase like I have with things in the past.

Sounds like people like their Mixwizards. Looks like I could use it in my rack without a problem, nice. I'm pretty sure I would love one too. My only concern is that it is so big and heavy and the cost. More inputs and stuff than I need but I could grow into it and I may need 16 inputs around the corner, who knows. I would go for the 12 input version, but I think it's the same size and only $100 cheaper. Not popular I guess so you can hardly find one used. Nice demo movie Ricey, thanks. Gives me good ideas.

GZsound-On the Yamaha MG206C, this is the one I was looking at. Saw one go used pretty cheap on ebay but I can't see one new for less than $600 + shipping. I like that it seems significantly smaller and lighter than the Mixwiz with most connections on top. Like the idea of the compression, -it works good for live? You use it for vocals? Other stuff? Would you miss it if gone and/or does it allow you to leave an external rack at home? Possible downsides I can see--
1. I think I would want the effects built in. Bringing a reverb rack would offset the weight savings.
2. No direct outs. There must be an advantage to having direct outs right? Obviously you would use these to multitrack a gig. Most would use these for useing the preamps for a DAW right? Can you achive the same effect using the insert or one of the aux sends? Direct outs balanced, auxes not?
3. 1 swept mid band eq vs. 2 on the mixwiz I think. Not huge but a + for A&H.

You used the A&H, Soundcraft and Yamaha. You like Soundcraft best I guess, looks like a nice board. Would you rather have the A&H over the Yamaha if they were the same price? You think the preamps are pretty comparable between A&H and Yamaha? If I went for the Yamaha board I think I would look for a used MG166CX. Less inputs but has the effects. Should be able to get one pretty cheap used and then save faster for new interface. Maybe upgrade it later if I needed to or get a nice channel strip instead for recording.
Well... some good questions.

What I use my mixer for is live sound gigs. I run sound at multiple bluegrass festivals throughout the year..and at small city park music events, big band concerts, country bands, rock bands..etc. I have a small system and 16 channels is sufficient for my needs.

I use it for drums, bass, keyboards, big bands, acoustic instruments..etc. pretty much anything and everything.

I did a search and found Amazon.com had the MG 206C for $489.. That was a couple of weeks ago.

I paid $600 for my mixer and considered that a great deal.

Direct outs are good, but inserts work equally as well so the MG 206C has 16 "direct outs" via the channel inserts.

I use the built in compression for drums, bass and vocals. Not always..but it works very well for a single knob compressor and can bring out a kick drum or mushy bass.. or a vocalist that has poor mic technique or huge dynamic range.

For an extra $300 you get two additional Aux Sends and four band EQ.. with the Mixwizard. However, you don't get built in compression and the MG206C is a four bus mixer.

The three band swept mid EQ on the Yamaha works fine for my needs. It only has four AUX sends and I use outboard effects, but it has enough routing capabilities that I can run four monitor mixes and still have effects routed.

If I had a thousand dollars to spend on a 16 channel rack mount mixer, I would most likely buy a Soundcraft FX16. I have been impressed with Soundcraft mixers and in fact own a 16 channel Soundcraft digital in my studio.

Again, it comes down to a trade off and $300 difference.

I would buy the Yamaha MG206C again in a heartbeat and if mine ever fails, I will replace it with another.

I have greater need for $300 in extra cash than I do for a nameplate.
#11
7th July 2009
Old 7th July 2009
  #11
Gear Head
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 63

role_65 is offline
I was in this situation a year ago, except i needed at least 14 channels so the mix wiz was a little on the small side, but because of it's rep was in contention. i also looked into a used gl2400, but i settled with a yammie 01v96. I read alot on the PSW boards and both the mix wiz and the yammie get alot of love, I just liked the idea of going digital and having adat capabilities and expandibility to record with. Also really decent effects and DYN on EVERY channel! I know it's a probably another $300-500 more for used, but IMO it was worth it, recall, 8 aux, etc etc. And it's really easy, WAY WAY WAY easier to navigate than the Mackie TT24 I had used before. I either way it's a win, but if you are thinking about recording going digital may get you more milage for the cash...
Ryan

FWIW I have done 5 church installs in the area ( one had the TT24...never again) i have installed 2 of the 32 channel MG series consoles, for the money it's a decent board, BUT not in the same class as the A&H and 01v96. better Eq and substantially more headroom in the latter. If Money's tight i would buy an MG board understanding the live sound will be usable, but SERIOUS question marks about the pre's for recording.
#12
7th July 2009
Old 7th July 2009
  #12
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
allencollins's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Rosedale Cemetery Singing Beach, MA
Posts: 4,868

allencollins is offline
look for an older GL or and old system 8
they sound pretty good
#13
7th July 2009
Old 7th July 2009
  #13
Lives for gear
 
GZsound's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,558

GZsound is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by role_65 View Post
I was in this situation a year ago, except i needed at least 14 channels so the mix wiz was a little on the small side, but because of it's rep was in contention. i also looked into a used gl2400, but i settled with a yammie 01v96. I read alot on the PSW boards and both the mix wiz and the yammie get alot of love, I just liked the idea of going digital and having adat capabilities and expandibility to record with. Also really decent effects and DYN on EVERY channel! I know it's a probably another $300-500 more for used, but IMO it was worth it, recall, 8 aux, etc etc. And it's really easy, WAY WAY WAY easier to navigate than the Mackie TT24 I had used before. I either way it's a win, but if you are thinking about recording going digital may get you more milage for the cash...
Ryan

FWIW I have done 5 church installs in the area ( one had the TT24...never again) i have installed 2 of the 32 channel MG series consoles, for the money it's a decent board, BUT not in the same class as the A&H and 01v96. better Eq and substantially more headroom in the latter. If Money's tight i would buy an MG board understanding the live sound will be usable, but SERIOUS question marks about the pre's for recording.
I agree with you about the Mackie TT24.

The most unintuitive mixer I have ever used.. really a POS mixer in my opinion.

As I said, I also have a Soundcraft 328 digital mixer and it would work fine for live sound too, but it's not rack mountable and there is something really nice about just being able to grab a knob in a live situation.

I much prefer analogue mixers for live use. Having to scroll through menu's when in a live situation or when bright sunlight blanks out the screen, it just makes life more complicated. And they are typically a lot more expensive.
VTNate
Thread Starter
#14
8th July 2009
Old 8th July 2009
  #14
Gear interested
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Location: Vermont
Posts: 29

Thread Starter
VTNate is offline
Thanks, some good comments here. It seems that the old version mixwiz does not have mutes while the new version does. Hard to find good pics but the manual show it has mutes. A good reason to go for the newer version.
Never looked too hard at the ZED and GL series stuff because I don't think it's rackmountable. It's so nice to have everything wired up when you get to a gig and it's less wear on the jacks and cables. Gives me a place to put stuff when I get back home to my "studio"/dining room.
Mixwiz probably isn't the best choice for recording and that's good to consider, but it will probably be quite awhile before I would know what to do with extra busses and the like. I know what I need for live and it has that and more. I'm pretty novice with the recording and I'll probably just be recording 2 tracks at a time into an interface most of the time. From browsing around here it seems like I should be mixing ITB unless I can afford a real high-end console. I'm just thinking that the pres on the mixwiz are probably better than Mbox and maybe also Digi003?
I will stay tuned for any more comments about A&H or Yamaha or whatever. If I wanted to multitrack a live gig, I couldn't use inserts as DI's right, because there wouldn't be any signal going through to speakers? But I could use them for recording at home is how I understand.
#15
9th July 2009
Old 9th July 2009
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 2,711

aussie_techie is offline
An A&H is the cheapest respectable choice period. Wizards are still very cheap in comparison to anything else but its still a minimum professional standard. If you can go better than a wizard you could look for crest.

The main functional difference between a wizard series 2 and 3 is individual phantom which i would not want to be without. I hate getting stuck with global phantom. I'm not sure about all version but the 16ch version had mutes in both series, The series 2 simply had called it an on button which makes more sense than a mute IMO but a small thing either way.
Wizard 2 or 3 has Line inputs (you can use use as DIs but wont be as good as a proper DI) inserts and direct out so you can still record a show without affecting your live mix.
I believe FX were changed in later production series 2 but either way i would say the same thing they are both usable live but nothing special. You can get alont more out of them editing them as you go but its more to carry and in which case you may as well just get an external fx unit.

I think some ZED are rack mountable but they are designed for a different market with a different feature set. No current GLs are rackmountable but you may be able to find an old GL2 that would be.

Yamaha MGs dont even come close to a wizard or GL. The MG24 and MG32 (16 and 24ch) versions are better than the smaller ones but are still along way from an A&H and not rack-mountable anyway. Yamaha even cheat you in their channel numbering, i hate being told there is a desk with x number of channels only to find there are much fewer mic channels and all the stereo ch and returns are unbalanced so you are even more limited. Last time i used an MG24 i was impressed it could be fairly transparent and for once i was able to make the most of its weird routing and get 4 wedges and 3 fx which is more than you can do with a wizard but it was still by far the weakest link in the system (my inserts are worth more than the desk). All the MGs suffer from low headroom on the mix bus and the EQ is next to useless, its not just that its only 3 band but the EQ simply sucks. The pres have more headroom than the mix bus so with good comps on the inserts you can get the most out of the board but by the time you spend the money on inserts you come to a completely different price point and your still left with a desk with some very big problems.
#16
9th July 2009
Old 9th July 2009
  #16
Lives for gear
 
GZsound's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,558

GZsound is offline
Interesting..

Having used the two Yamaha MG series mixers I own in my studio, I disagree that the EQ "sucks" and it is three band, but with swept mids. And my MG 206C is a 16 channel mixer with 16 XLR channels and fairly standard routing. And it's rack mountable.

It does suffer from only having four aux sends, but I use the subgroups for effects sends if four monitor sends are required.

I would not consider the Allen & Heath to be the cheapest "respectable" mixer.. Maybe if the name plate is what garners the respect, but as far as sounding professional, I'll put the Yamaha up against the Allen & Heath Mixwizard any time..

Since the OP said he was on a tight budget, the Yamaha is a viable alternative to the more expensive A & H.

If budget is not an object, then certainly the A & H or a Soundcraft FX16 would be a step up.
#17
9th July 2009
Old 9th July 2009
  #17
Lives for gear
 
tombak's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 773

tombak is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by allencollins View Post
look for an older GL or and old system 8
they sound pretty good
I preferred the sound of a A&H GL2 over the Mix Wizard.
System 8's are great but probably not the most portable.
#18
9th July 2009
Old 9th July 2009
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 2,711

aussie_techie is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by GZsound View Post
I disagree that the EQ "sucks" and it is three band, but with swept mids.
Compare it to the eq of a GL and you will hear what i mean, a wizard at least attempts to be close to a GL. With a decent eq you can get separation of instruments with an MG i am always left feeling well it kind of does what i want when i turn that knob but there is no clarity or separation between instruments.
In a studio setting where you can endlessly play with different mics and their position and use other EQ later the minimal control of the MG eq would be fine in a live situation where all you can do is reach for an eq to do what you need your stuck and you better hope you dont have to do much eq.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GZsound View Post
my MG 206C is a 16 channel mixer with 16 XLR channels and fairly standard routing.
But only 12 full featured channels. Those extra channels may be good for returns but they are usless as main inputs. on another note why would you want comps fixed to 8 channels? i wouldn't want to compress every channel next to each other but i may want to compress another channel. Looking further what do i do when i need balanced stereo inputs

Quote:
Originally Posted by GZsound View Post
It does suffer from only having four aux sends
and thats the first reason they dont cut it for most setups. where you can work a setup for a single band it may be fine but put 5 band on in a row and that kind of minimal feature set doesn't cut it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GZsound View Post
I would not consider the Allen & Heath to be the cheapest "respectable" mixer.. Maybe if the name plate is what garners the respect, but as far as sounding professional, I'll put the Yamaha up against the Allen & Heath Mixwizard any time..
I would actually consider a GL to be a minimum standard (at least they are almost a standard in pubs/clubs around here) a wizard comes close in a smaller package but an MG does work in some situations but in others it can not cut it because it simply does not have the same features.

Bottom line you are getting a different features with a 206c so you cant compare them anyway.
#19
9th July 2009
Old 9th July 2009
  #19
Lives for gear
 
GZsound's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,558

GZsound is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie_techie View Post
Compare it to the eq of a GL and you will hear what i mean, a wizard at least attempts to be close to a GL. With a decent eq you can get separation of instruments with an MG i am always left feeling well it kind of does what i want when i turn that knob but there is no clarity or separation between instruments.
In a studio setting where you can endlessly play with different mics and their position and use other EQ later the minimal control of the MG eq would be fine in a live situation where all you can do is reach for an eq to do what you need your stuck and you better hope you dont have to do much eq.

But only 12 full featured channels. Those extra channels may be good for returns but they are usless as main inputs. on another note why would you want comps fixed to 8 channels? i wouldn't want to compress every channel next to each other but i may want to compress another channel. Looking further what do i do when i need balanced stereo inputs


and thats the first reason they dont cut it for most setups. where you can work a setup for a single band it may be fine but put 5 band on in a row and that kind of minimal feature set doesn't cut it.

I would actually consider a GL to be a minimum standard (at least they are almost a standard in pubs/clubs around here) a wizard comes close in a smaller package but an MG does work in some situations but in others it can not cut it because it simply does not have the same features.

Bottom line you are getting a different features with a 206c so you cant compare them anyway.

Again, I appreciate what you are saying.

And you are correct, four of the channels in the MG206C aren't "full featured" they have three band EQ without the swept mids.

And I guess I am a little confused. What mixer has balanced stereo inputs on each channel? All the line in inputs on the MG206C are balanced, but you need two channels for a stereo signal.

The Mixwizard has balanced STEREO inputs on each channel? And you run live sound in stereo in the second place?

Plus, eight channels of compression being on adjacent channels as a complaint makes very little sense to me. They should have compressed every other channel? Random channels?

I have found it to be a simple matter of routing the sources that need compression to the channels with compressors.. Or I use outboard compressors via inserts if necessary.

The eight channels of compression are one feature that the A & H doesn't have regardless. If you want compression on ANY channel, you have to buy one.

But I keep coming back to the bottom line which was budget.

As an alternative to the typical Mackie , Behringer, even Soundcraft budget mixers, the Yamaha MG 206C is a very nice unit FOR THE MONEY.

And I don't run sound for events that require more than four monitor mixes.. although just about every sound gig I have done for the past 20 years has multiple bands involved, I do smaller sound gigs with up to 1,500 folks. Anything bigger and I let the big dogs do it.
VTNate
Thread Starter
#20
10th July 2009
Old 10th July 2009
  #20
Gear interested
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Location: Vermont
Posts: 29

Thread Starter
VTNate is offline
Mark, you've done a fine job defending the Yamaha mixer and as budget is a major factor for me and I'm sure others that may read this, I appreciate the suggestion. I wish I had gotten one of these Yamaha MG mixers instead of the behringer board I have now. I originally had a 4 channel Mackie VLZ 2 series. Needed more inputs and stuff so I got a Behringer 2222FX (8 inputs $280 new). Wasn't bad so I also got a Xenyx 1204FX (4 inputs $180) for smaller gigs where I didn't want to bring the whole rack case. In hindsight I wished I had gotten a used Yamaha for about the same money as the 2222FX. I sold the 2222FX months ago when I was gathering $ to buy a Mixwiz but never got it together so now I just have the 1204FX.
I got a cheap mixer and spent my $ on mics and speakers and guitar stuff as I was building up my live rig. Maybe I should have gotten a good mixer first and upgraded the other stuff later. I do feel the mixer is the weak link now and I hope that when I do get a new one I will really hear the difference. I'm kind of at a crossroads right now with no gigs to pay for more gear and lacking proper gear to get decent recordings. Hopefully I will be able to swing a new mixer before too long and I'm hoping the sound improvement will inspire me to get some new gigs happening.
I have seen some A&H GL2's go pretty cheap on ebay. So this mixer is as good or better than the mixwiz? My hesitation with this desk is not as much that it only has 10XLR inputs but more that all the connects are on the bottom of the mixer. This seems like it would be a pain and always has to be rackmounted. I think even rackmounted I could access the Mixwiz from the back? Or it could be on a desk. Also, the GL2 doesn't have the FX which are nice built in for live. This may be a good choice though as it could go cheaper than Mixwiz.
Can anyone give a comment on the GL2 in particular?
Sorry, I'm sure that this is more info on my personal situation than anyone needs but I'm explaining my situation. It might take me awhile, but I will comment on my experience when I do get a new mixer. There is so much out there that it's good to know exactly what you want to watch for a good deal.
#21
10th July 2009
Old 10th July 2009
  #21
Lives for gear
 
GZsound's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,558

GZsound is offline
Well, I notice the bar keeps changing.

The original premise was to get a decent mixer on a budget.

We now have jumped from the Mixwizard to the GL series Allen & Heath mixers, which are certainly in a very different class than the budget mixers we were originally discussing.

For large format mixers, the A& H are great. I have experience with Soundcraft LX7ii and GB8, Toft, etc. large format mixers and there is actually quite a lot of choice when you get into that price range. I prefer Yamaha digital consoles if I had my preferences, but at $20,000 and up, I don't consider them budget mixers.

If live recording is the goal, I like an eight bus mixer that, when coupled with direct outputs, can drive my 24 track remote recording rig.

However, we are well over the original premise and well beyond what I consider a "budget" mixer.

When comparing Mackie, Behringer, and even Soundcraft small format mixers, I believe the Yamaha MG206C is a great mixer FOR THE MONEY.

If buying a used mixer is a possibility, I would check out a Soundcraft 328 digital mixer. I just saw one on ebay for $800. Sixteen channels of digital I/O, independent compressors on each channel, great mic preamps, dual stereo line inputs, paragraphic multiband EQ on each channel, dual Lexicon effects..etc.

I like mine a lot.
#22
10th July 2009
Old 10th July 2009
  #22
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: SJCap
Posts: 1,148

glissando is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by allencollins View Post
look for an older GL or and old system 8
they sound pretty good
Yup...that's good advice
VTNate
Thread Starter
#23
10th July 2009
Old 10th July 2009
  #23
Gear interested
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Location: Vermont
Posts: 29

Thread Starter
VTNate is offline
I'm not trying to change anything. I still am leaning toward the 16 channel Mizwizard but I am watching the Yamaha mixers too. Maybe the GL2 is not the same series mixer as when people refer to the GL series, but I've seen them go for less than the Mixwizard. There's one on ebay now for $200 with a day or two to go. I do notice in other threads though, that someone will ask about a $200 piece of gear and next thing you know, people are insisting they need to spend $2000 or 20k or they shouldn't bother.
I was considering buying one of those Soundcraft Delta 200's that people seem so fond of. Only went for $175 but it didn't have the deluxe inputs and they seem pretty large to haul around at a gig. Might be a good long term thing though someday for home recording if I got one cheap and got the channel strips upgraded/modified as I could afford. This is very cool though for me to get some advice here. I hardly know anyone that can play an instrument around here, never mind know anything about professional sound equiptment. Thanks.
#24
10th July 2009
Old 10th July 2009
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 2,711

aussie_techie is offline
for $200 i would grab a GL2 if the channel configuration is right and if its in good condition, but these days that is a big if.
I dont have enough time with them to give you a proper comparison but apart from some grit that comes with wear they did feel nicer than a wizard. Aux sends were pre eq though.
#25
10th July 2009
Old 10th July 2009
  #25
Lives for gear
 
bcgood's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,157

bcgood is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricey View Post
Love mine.

#26
10th July 2009
Old 10th July 2009
  #26
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 2,711

aussie_techie is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by GZsound View Post
And you are correct, four of the channels in the MG206C aren't "full featured" they have three band EQ without the swept mids.
No inserts either and unbalanced jacks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GZsound View Post
And I guess I am a little confused. What mixer has balanced stereo inputs on each channel? All the line in inputs on the MG206C are balanced, but you need two channels for a stereo signal.
Not on every channel but balanced inputs are expected on the stereo channels. no MG has balanced line inputs on any stereo channel or aux return that i know of. If you havnt figured it out maybe you need to go and read the manual.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GZsound View Post
The Mixwizard has balanced STEREO inputs on each channel? And you run live sound in stereo in the second place?
All the returns are balanced and all PAs should be run in at least stereo even if your going to mix most things down the centre. Even if you use the channel as a mono channels you still want it balanced. Anyway that goes beyond this thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by GZsound View Post
Plus, eight channels of compression being on adjacent channels as a complaint makes very little sense to me. They should have compressed every other channel? Random channels?
If you ran standard channel assignments you would have hats and toms on comp channels and vocals on the cut down channels. How can you mix like that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GZsound View Post
I have found it to be a simple matter of routing the sources that need compression to the channels with compressors..
Maybe that works when you can setup for one band but when you get 6 bands a night all with something different or when running any touring rig you need a standard order.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GZsound View Post
Or I use outboard compressors via inserts if necessary.
how do you run an insert on channel 13 - 16?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GZsound View Post
The eight channels of compression are one feature that the A & H doesn't have regardless. If you want compression on ANY channel, you have to buy one.
Lucky i already have an insert rack worth more than any MG console then. It lets me get a lot more out of an MG but there are still no many limits of the console. Its pretty easy to clip an MG aswell and everything else will still be metering in the green. Unless you have a Paragon you need inserts to mix most bands anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GZsound View Post
But I keep coming back to the bottom line which was budget.
You can only define what you need technically and a budget once you define what you need to be able do. Most people get that the wrong way around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GZsound View Post
As an alternative to the typical Mackie , Behringer, even Soundcraft budget mixers, the Yamaha MG 206C is a very nice unit FOR THE MONEY.
ill take an MG32 or 24 over an old wackie but i wouldnt go near a behringer in the first place. If thats where you have come from its easy to see you have moved up but its still a big jump to a real rig.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GZsound View Post
And I don't run sound for events that require more than four monitor mixes.. although just about every sound gig I have done for the past 20 years has multiple bands involved, I do smaller sound gigs with up to 1,500 folks. Anything bigger and I let the big dogs do it.
I usually work with 4 wedges but its not uncommon for a touring band to want side fills or someone to walk in with in ears and i want 4 fx for the main bands i do. So its easy to get to 10 sends before you even blink when your doing everything from one console.
#27
11th July 2009
Old 11th July 2009
  #27
Lives for gear
 
GZsound's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,558

GZsound is offline
Well..obviously this turned into a pissing match..

So.. I'll just leave you all to the task.

I'm happy and make a lot of money with my little POS Yamaha mixer..

Carry on.. I'll be over in the corner reading the manual.
#28
11th July 2009
Old 11th July 2009
  #28
Lives for gear
 
Adlen's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 3,103
My Recordings/Credits

Adlen is offline
(Haven't read all the other replies so sorry if I repeat anything)

I had a brief play with one. It was rackmounted and yes, the inputs were a bitch. If I owned it I'd put some short cables onto an input panel on the back of my rack just so that I wouldnt want to beat the thing every time I tried to plug something in.

Have you looked at the A&H Zed series? Worth the extra money I believe.
__________________
Liam Adlen
www.shadowplaystudios.co.uk
#29
12th July 2009
Old 12th July 2009
  #29
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 2,711

aussie_techie is offline
The Zed is cheaper but for 16ch it is not rack mountable.
#30
12th July 2009
Old 12th July 2009
  #30
Lives for gear
 
Adlen's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 3,103
My Recordings/Credits

Adlen is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie_techie View Post
The Zed is cheaper but for 16ch it is not rack mountable.
Oh good point, forgot about that.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.