Are Mackie VLZ mixers good enough for classical?

[rumleymusic]

That's nice... and why do you have any high end gear if the cheap stuff does the same thing with experience and skill?

Because we are slutz....

Yes the expensive stuff tends to sound the best as a general rule, and in equal hands better results can be gotten with hand picked, no compromise equipment. The best companies fine tune their products without much thought into price point, however, there is a point where cost and quality have no correlation. There are a lot of factors which bring the price of certain equipment up: brand name, component selection (tube/solid state), country of origin, labor costs etc. None of which have a direct correlation with "quality" of sound.

The best engineers tend to pick their equipment based on sound alone, and how that equipment will be used and integrate into the current setup, and couldn't care less about price. It is about personal preference and not ability.

[Remoteness]

Originally Posted by piano

That's nice... and why do you have any high end gear if the cheap stuff does the same thing with experience and skill?

How about a Radio Shack pre and mic?

It does take skill to record well (if you are charging you better have those skills). But who's coming out on top out of two skilled guys - the guy with the high end gear or the cheap stuff.

I just mixed a record that was recorded in my friend's basement with a $50.00 MXL mic into a M-Audio 1814 interface using Garageband with (only) free plug-ins...

These mixes sound as good as anything else out there.
Matter of fact I was talking to Robert Anderson about starting a thread called "Is it about the gear or your "ear?"

I want to pick one of the mixes I did in Garageband and have a few folks mix their version...

The idea is that no one can use anything more than what I used; and that is Garageband with nothing more than what the free program gives you.

I want to pick a Jazz mixer; a classical mixer; a rock mixer and an intern.

Then we shall upload the mixes and have the forum members decided who did each mix and how they feel everything sounds.

[philper]

Originally Posted by Remoteness

I just mixed a record that was recorded in my friend's basement with a $50.00 MXL mic into a M-Audio 1814 interface using Garageband with (only) free plug-ins...

These mixes sound as good as anything else out there.
Matter of fact I was talking to Robert Anderson about starting a thread called "Is it about the gear or your "ear?"

I want to pick one of the mixes I did in Garageband and have a few folks mix their version...

The idea is that no one can use anything more than what I used; and that is Garageband with nothing more than what the free program gives you.

I want to pick a Jazz mixer; a classical mixer; a rock mixer and an intern.

Then we shall upload the mixes and have the forum members decided who did each mix and how they feel everything sounds.

....sounds scary....

Philip Perkins

[jnorman]

as a photographer who spent my career shooting a 4x5 doing topographic documentation for the library of congress, i can attest that there are situations where the camera absolutely matters - the LOC will not even accept any negatives smaller than 4x5" - all hand processed to archival standards (and they test every neg). they do not accept any digital images.

that said, i still do some commercial stock and documentary work with digital cameras - and there are many times when i will intentionally select a dinky point and shoot camera instead of a much nicer high end DSLR. i have been stopped by cops, security guards, and homeland security personnel way too many times as i tried to shoot federal buildings, etc, because they were suspicious of my professional gear. by just wandering around like a tourist with a P&S, i can pretty much get away with anything - no prob.

back to audio, however, i do believe piano is making an inappropriate distinction with the gear he is referencing - none of us are talking about trying to use radio shack mics - we are talking about the differentiation between mid-level and high end gear. yes, there is a significant difference between using a pair of sm57s, or $100 SDCs (or radio shack gob), and using a pair of DPAs. however, the difference between much "mid-level" gear and DPAs, schoeps, neumanns, etc, is MUCH more subtle these days. this si true even within high end brands - the little DPA 4061s seem to hold their own against DPA 4006s for piano micing, for example. gefell M300s (i paid $600 for my pair) and AT4051s can easily hold their own against damn near any SDC. the AKG C480/ck61, which can be had used for under $1000/pr can yeild world class results.

i have owned pairs of DPA 4011s, and schoeps CMC64s, both of which were near $3000/pr, yet my favorite mics are a pair of KM140s that i got for about $1000/pr. i think it is perfectly reasonable to assume a pair of beyer mc930s, at $725/pr brand new, might turn out results that can stand beside anything, given a good engineer, players, and acoustics. or MBHO SDCs, for around $1100/pr new. or AT4022s, at under $500/pr new. or mojave MA100s, or charter oak M900s, or peluso, or JZ, etc, etc.

[Teddy Ray]

Piano should be first in line for the mixing test.

[NEWTON IN ORBIT]

I don't have tons of Classical recording experience, but some.

I started with crappy, low end gear in 1989-1990. Tascam M-520 to MS-16, then chained to a mackie 8-12 hrs a day for 6-7 years, etc.

The Mackies, at one point, were all we had for mic amps. Compared to the Tascam, at the time of "upgrade", they seemed like a big improvement, as far as clarity and noise was concerned.

One day, we pulled out some old reels and dats to listen back to old things done on the Tascam. Wow...it was noisier, it was dirtier, but it in many cases sounded maybe better?

Noisier and dirtier is obviously NOT good for Classical recording. The Mackies did serve us well, in a couple of Cathedral, and large Chuch gigs. They worked. They weren't great, they weren't horrible, but they were quiet, and at the time for what we were working for, and what the client could pay, it was the best either of us could get our hands on.

We had no comparison on hand either.

All of that said, it wasn't until later when we started borrowing, renting, and buying better preamps that we started to be able to even realize what a difference preamps make.

It is subtle, and takes time to really hear the difference, but it is there. It also takes time to understand maybe what those differences are? It is not however a "huge" leap in quality, more of a small leap, and more of a "different" change than a better change.

If I had to use a Mackie for recording Classical, I would. That said, if I had other options that were just as clean and quiet, but were more "musical" (whatever that means), I would certainly opt for those.

Teddy, I spoke to you recently on the phone about my Gefell mic. I totally respect your opinion (you have a wealth of knowledge), and yes, maybe some of the best recordings I have done were done on our 32*8 back in the day, because of the Mackie or not? It could have been the musicians and a zillion other factors, but whatever.

My point is that maybe the poster who did not want to disclose who did the record with the Mackie has some good reasons.

One of them could be just the public's overall impression of Mackie's as being "cheap"?

If this engineer goes and publicly states that he uses Mackies to capture his recordings, he may very well run the risk of people shunning him for future work. This can really screw up a career, as silly as it seems.

We had something similar happen when someone in our town purchased a Neve (IC based 54 series), and began telling people (our clients) "They are using that Mackie over there...I can hear it...yuck."

We actually though a lot of our recordings sounded WAY better than this guys, and I don't think it was bias because they were ours.

Hoever, we did lose several jobs after that, because the guy was throwing the word around that our equipment was "cheap", and "prosumer".

You know what...looking back, I don't blame the people that listened to him now either. I mean really, when people want to hire out somebody, yes they are looking at the engineer's skillset, but they also want to know that their product is being produced with the best possible tools available.

That's just the way people are, and the world is sadly.

I mean, if the best furniture maker in the world told you he was going to build you some custom cabinets with a $0.99 steak knife and a tack hammer from the dollar store, wouldn't you look at him funny?

He may still be able to make something wonderful, but man...you would wonder, and surely hesitate to hire him. Maybe he is suffereing from a nervous breakdown or something?

Not that the Mackie is a dollar store mixer, and I don't mean to bash it, but that was purely for the sake of making a point.

People want to know that EVERY last stop is pulled out (within their budget constraints) to get the best quality for their dollar. This means best engineer, and best equipment, best room, best cables...you name it.

And people are getting educated to a fault with these new forums like Gearslutz, and are on the edge of being OCD about this IMHO.

It is what it is, and it sucks, but it's life in 2010.

Sorry for the rant, my humble contribution.
John

[Alrod]

Originally Posted by dtf

I don't really see the problem here. Somebody wrote that a Grammy-winning album was produced with a Mackie mixer. I, for one, believe him.

I don't care which album it was. I have worked a lot with Mackies when I started out, also doing some commercial recordings with them. Once I had the opportunity to not use them anymore, I was happy.

I always thought everybody agreed on the "it's not the gear, but the engineer"...

I know this thread is a bit old but...

I think this is a good example of what being naive means. To just blindly believe someone that provides no proof at all. This could be the most expensive mistake for any gearslut. I mean really we should blindly believe everything we read?!?

[John Willett]

About the Mackie.

I bought the original 1604. I actually wanted to spend a lot more, but could not find any mixer that was quiet enough.

This was in the late 1980's and I had, a few years earlier, bought the Sony PCM-F1 system and recently upgraded my main mics to Sennheiser MKH 20/30/40 (pair of each). So - no longer was the tape recorder the weak link in the chain, now it was the mixer that had the poorest noise figures.

I had been looking for a decent mixer for several years, but nothing was quiet or transparent enough. Someone suggest I listened to the Mackie (which I had discounted as being too cheap) and I was astounded. It was the first mixer I had listened to that was so quiet that it did not sound like a mixer at all. I bought it on the spot. For those that complain about Mackie EQ, I always used it set flat and never used the EQ at all.

Why - Mackie kept a minimalistic signal path, and did not keep boosting and attenuating the signal. It was a metal case and everything was on a single PCB.

Good design and good automated manufacture can make high quality at a reasonable price.


Posted via the Gearslutz iPhone app

[toneguru]

If you are doing a score for a major motion picture using a trio of M50's and spending $60k an hour on the Fox stage....

no the Mackie VLZ is not gonna cut it.

But...

If you are on a tight budget the VLZ can certainly do the job.

- cheers

[NoKi]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Why - Mackie kept a minimalistic signal path, and did not keep boosting and attenuating the signal. It was a metal case and everything was on a single PCB.
Good design and good automated manufacture can make high quality at a reasonable price.

About 10 years ago I bought an 1202 VLZ Pro for monitoring line sources. But eventually I used the preamps for a minimalistic setup and was really impressed by the clear and detailed sound. It is very nice that you can use the inserts as direct outs so that the EQ and the summing stage are not in the signal path at all (there is no EQ-bypass switch).
I would not hesitate to use these preamps for serious recordings (I did actually), and I must confess that I made some better recordings with a Mackie than with my DAV BG-8. So, at least in my case, the limiting factor was not the preamp ;-)

Nils

[EV676]

While not music, I'm the on-site radio engineer for a local sports syndicator. I do around 12 to 14 football games a year. For at least a decade a Mackie 1202 or 1402 has been part of my kit.

Toward the end of this season my 1402 died. That meant a panic trip to Guitar Center (one was close by) on a Friday night about 90 minutes before airtime.

I got lucky, they had a slightly used 1402 VLZ-3 (the latest incarnation) and they met my offer. What impressed me the most about the VLZ-3 upgrade was the improved headroom, necessary when your play-by-play guys get "excitied." The sound was noticably cleaner and as I said the mixer wouldn't distort when suddenly faced with a volume increase. The older VLZ's had trouble keeping up with sudden peaks etc.

I'm looking for an opportunity to do some simple stereo recording. I'm quite impressed with the overall audio improvement in the newer Mackies.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by hbphotoav

... leaving the two large-ish FOH racks (EQs, dynamics and FX) at home since acquiring a StudioLive 24.4.2 is a freakin' joy.

Not to hijack; how does the StudioLive sound?

[hbphotoav]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

Not to hijack; how does the StudioLive sound?

Yummy. I can't hear much if any difference between its mic amps and the Onyx. I have used it once to track (small club rock show) and three or four times live. Got four more gigs before next weekend. haven't tracked any classical stuff yet, as I have not ever needed more than 8 channels, and I do enjoy my Ensemble/BG8 setup... which eight channels cost half again as much as the 24 onboard the StudioLive, so I ought to be happier... right?

Definitely a LS9 killer (based on very limited LS9 time). Cased, it's not any heavier than my Onyx 1640 (or a O1V/DM1000)... with eight additional channels.Definitely worth a look, listen and test drive. Read through the manual (took me about 90 minutes) and get busy with it. The Fat Channel arrangement is a killer user interface.

HB

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by EV676

I'm quite impressed with the overall audio improvement in the newer Mackies.

Yes, they are a significant step up in preamps and the mix bus.

But wait, there's more!

I haven't had opportunity to use the EQ in the current version (try not to use it much, anyway), but the EQ has been improved as well and this is also seen in the graphic documentation.

These mixers are serious pieces of gear.

[6strings]

I do occasional live classical recording in some nice venues. It's for a non-profit org so budget is low so I also handle multiple audio duties at once (including feeding the video crew their audio feed) I need multiple busses for so I bring along my old Mackie 1604 VLZ. Very quiet. When using condensor mics, you'll be much more concerned about things like isolating mics from rumble, hoping the page-turners are quiet, the heating/AC is not too loud, etc... Believe me, the Mackie will be the least of your concern.

Re: RF interference. One venue is located right next to a high-power radio tower used by multiple radio stations. No issues with interference whatsoever. None.

One aspect on the old VLZ vs. the new VLZ is the build quality. As I understand it, the new ones are built in China whereas the old ones in the USA. I'm fast becoming a believer (through experience) that anything built in China is destined to live a short shelflife due to the cheaper parts, labor and general lower QC. My US-built Mackie is still rock solid reliable after 15 years of hard labor; first as an ADAT mixing board, followed by 10 years in the bar circuit as soundboard. A local dealer reaffirmed my suspicions a while ago when he said they were getting a lot of returns and complaints about the newer VLZ3 units (I was considering getting a small board for some video projects as my 1604 was tied up in a P.A. at the time)... Anyway, for something mission critical like a board, I'd gladly pay extra for US-built product

My 2 bits on Mackie for classical recording.

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by 6strings

One aspect on the old VLZ vs. the new VLZ is the build quality. As I understand it, the new ones are built in China whereas the old ones in the USA. I'm fast becoming a believer (through experience) that anything built in China is destined to live a short shelflife due to the cheaper parts, labor and general lower QC. My US-built Mackie is still rock solid reliable after 15 years of hard labor; first as an ADAT mixing board, followed by 10 years in the bar circuit as soundboard. A local dealer reaffirmed my suspicions a while ago when he said they were getting a lot of returns and complaints about the newer VLZ3 units (I was considering getting a small board for some video projects as my 1604 was tied up in a P.A. at the time)... Anyway, for something mission critical like a board, I'd gladly pay extra for US-built product

My 2 bits on Mackie for classical recording.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe Mackie specifies the parts used in its mixers?

So, you've had no long term-or even short term-experience with the new Mackie's built in China. And you're going on the basis of hearsay. And thinking that all things Chinese come with crap parts.

What about those American companies producing products that are the most reliable in their class and consistently show the highest customer satisfaction rates-and those products are made in China? You know, that computer company based in California on some sort of infinite loop or whatnot?

OTH, I've had upper end expensive boutique items made by a very famous and highly regarded company in the UK that both turned out to be utter POS. I made that mistake twice. Do I bash all things UK because these famous and vaunted boxes were POS? No, I do not. I would, however, buy any Mackie made anywhere on the planet rather than another box by this specific UK firm.

I'm no fan of China, but to do this kind of vague bashing of a product of which the writer has no real experience because it has something to do with China is silly.

I can think of some highly regarded Asian cars that are built in factories in the US-and rationally minded people still by those even though they're made in the US, hardly known for its recent manufacturing standards.

If an American company's products are built in China are substandard and have crap parts, it's the fault of the American company, not the Chinese.

I am somewhat entertained and saddened by certain flag waving Americans on this site who support some products "because they are made right here in the USA, not in some factory in China." I think those patriots have stopped looking at the shipping material and documentation of many of those products.

So, why don't we stop all this nonsense and just look at the merits of a specific product?

There is good and bad gear made everywhere.

[The MPCist]

Originally Posted by JEGG

If an American company's products are built in China are substandard and have crap parts, it's the fault of the American company, not the Chinese.

+1

The problem lies close to home.

[6strings]

And you're going on the basis of hearsay.

No! I heard direct from a music dealer that they had a lot of pains with the newer Mackie units. To the point they were considering dropping the brand. Is Chinese production the problem? I don't know... do your own math!! Me... I'm just passing along the info and would recommend to look for a used VLZ over a new VLZ3 when purchasing a cheaper Mackie board. I'd rather have assured reliability over an incremental gain in performance.

Moving along now...

[hbphotoav]

Everyone goes through bad batches at some point. That it's anecdotal from (what seems to be) a single source would lead me to think along those lines. That, and tons of price pressure for very similar performance (initially) from Behringer and Alesis and Phonic...

If there were truly a pandemic problem with the off-shore manufacturing of US designed and spec'd audio devices, I'd have thought PSN, PAR, EM and others would be all over it.

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by 6strings

No! I heard direct from a music dealer that they had a lot of pains with the newer Mackie units. ................ Me... I'm just passing along the info and would recommend........

That is pretty much the definition of hearsay.

You seem to have little personal experience with the entire Mackie line over a period of years and product generations, yet have developed judgements on the current generation of Mackie products which you haven't used; based on the pronouncements of a "music dealer"-which, not surprisingly-fit in with your own (and his/her) prejudice toward manufacturing in China.

[Jeffguitar]

Originally Posted by John Willett

An ONYX is not a VLZ and the VLZ are better pre-amps for classical as they are more neutral. A guy from Mackie themselves advised me not to use the ONYX for classical.

Posted via the Gearslutz iPhone app

The Onyx pres are great, but they are colored pres, almost like a baby Neve. They are, to me, easily better than the Gap pre 73 pres. They are cleaner, quieter, but still have the color and I would easily choose one over many of the neve clones like the 7602 or the pre 73, but these are strictly Rock & Roll preamps, for electric rock guitar and that bluesy colored sound. The VlZ3 pres are better at delicate, clear recordings. The Onyx is a fine preamp, but only for that colored, nevish, Api sound. They are cheap Neve API pres, and I would choose them over the Gap pre 73, but not for clean, articulate recordings.

[CGBrian.M]

Originally Posted by Jeffguitar

The Onyx pres are great, but they are colored pres, almost like a baby Neve. They are, to me, easily better than the Gap pre 73 pres. They are cleaner, quieter, but still have the color and I would easily choose one over many of the neve clones like the 7602 or the pre 73, but these are strictly Rock & Roll preamps, for electric rock guitar and that bluesy colored sound. The VlZ3 pres are better at delicate, clear recordings. The Onyx is a fine preamp, but only for that colored, nevish, Api sound. They are cheap Neve API pres, and I would choose them over the Gap pre 73, but not for clean, articulate recordings.

Having just recorded myself about 2 hours ago playing classical guitar through a Onyx Blackjack interface, I highly disagree with this assessment. The Onyx pre's may not be the most transparent around, but I would not even come close to saying that they are to colored. Clean-yes, to colored-no. I just did a comparison (like today and yesterday) between the Blackjack, the new Apogee Duet 2, and my own Steinberg CI1. The CI1 was by far the most colored (although I still like it) with the Apogee the most transparent, but the Blackjack a close second. Clean, natural, and quiet would be my descriptors for the Onyx pre's. Good enough for classical? My answer is an emphatic yes!

P.S. No. I won't be posting my playing here on Gearslutz for a few reasons.

[Rolo 46]

My radio mates use Mackies in their trucks ,at line level, from splits from the PA.
They are happy.
Mackie had rf and reliability problems with nasty ribbon connectors not to long ago I seem to remember.

Classical recording needs few channels
Look for a used film mixer,Cooper ,Sonosax, Audio Design, bullet proof and excellent.
Roger

[recordinghopkins]

Originally Posted by Jeffguitar

The Onyx pres are great, but they are colored pres, almost like a baby Neve. They are, to me, easily better than the Gap pre 73 pres. They are cleaner, quieter, but still have the color and I would easily choose one over many of the neve clones like the 7602 or the pre 73, but these are strictly Rock & Roll preamps, for electric rock guitar and that bluesy colored sound. The VlZ3 pres are better at delicate, clear recordings. The Onyx is a fine preamp, but only for that colored, nevish, Api sound. They are cheap Neve API pres, and I would choose them over the Gap pre 73, but not for clean, articulate recordings.

I'm not sure I've ever heard Mackie described as Nevish, or likened to API color...

[Jeffguitar]

Originally Posted by recordinghopkins

I'm not sure I've ever heard Mackie described as Nevish, or likened to API color...

Well, i just meant that they are a colored pre to me, and great on electric guitar and rock music.

I too have a Blackjack and it has problems in win 7 but it is at least functional. I do love the sound of the converters and the pres together, very good input to your computer. I also have the 402 vlz3 and a Joe meek vC3Q, and I am happy with the pres I have and I just got a Soundcraft notepad with the GB30 pres and they are nice as well and I decided to use that for my live show since it has more routing options than the 402.

Yes, the Onyx pres are really good in my opinion, I would choose them over the RNP, which i also used to own. Over the gap pre as well. I have had them all three side by side and prefered the Onyx over the other two overall. There is a wonderful TINT to the Onyx pres, yet clean as well, just something nice about them to me, and the vlz3 pres are nice as well and cleaner for acoustic delicate recordings, but I guess the Onyx would be fine for classical too now that I think on it.