Are Mackie VLZ mixers good enough for classical?

[evisto]

I want to buy a not very expenssive mixer for classical music recording, Do you think this mackie it will be apropiated?

evisto

[jnorman]

i have used the VLZ3 preamps in a small mackie mixer on a number of occasions, and find them to be quite useable.

[WVUtubadude]

It should be fine. It's what I use for band competitions where I have to do straight to CD recordings.

[rumleymusic]

The XDR2 preamps are clean, quiet, and very usable. Many locations I record at have a VLZ3 mixer somewhere in the chain, I have a small one for emergencies and expansion if needed.

[Tommy-boy]

Mackies might not appeal to many a gear slut because they're not high end. However, I think they're fine. I've had a 1604 setup in my studio for years. I use it for routing of my keyboard / rack gear and it does a decent job.

[hbphotoav]

Look at the Onyx 1220i with the dig card option. It's a really inexpensive 14-input mixer (16 tracks... it tracks the four mic amps and the eight stereo line inputs, and the main L/R bus) which, coupled with a really nice mic amp, is a decent multitrack mixer (I use mine running house PA duties from the AUX sends while tracking) with decent onboard preamps and does a decent A-D conversion. Not bad for $700.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by evisto

I want to buy a not very expensive mixer for classical music recording, Do you think this Mackie it will be appropriate?

Yes it will be OK. The weak part of the Mackie are the tone controls, so I always left mine in the "flat" position.

Don't get the Onyx, though, that is a little coloured for classical (as told to me by Mackie UK).

[krs]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Yes it will be OK. The weak part of the Mackie are the tone controls, so I always left mine in the "flat" position.

Don't get the Onyx, though, that is a little coloured for classical (as told to me by Mackie UK).

In my experience the Onyx stuff is quieter and better sounding better than the VLZ. They can totally work. Your best bet is to get a model with direct outs (or insert jacks) and come out of the board early. This is especially true on the pre-Onyx stuff where you can't bypass the eq

[JEGG]

Yes, Mackies are just fine with a couple of caveats.

The first VLZ mixer employed an earlier mic amp. Still, OK, but the generations since have much better mic amps. If you can go direct to your recording device from the preamps via the insert out, that is the shortest path. (Some would not consider what Mackie calls "direct outs" to be what they are called.)

However, using the rest of the mixer is OK, too, but:

Gain structure is absolutely key. Follow directions exactly. Everyone wants to run these boards way too hot! Failure to employ good gain structure will result in compromised recordings. OTH, the Mackies can sound very open and easy if they're used correctly. Let the thing breathe.

Don't forget, you can go directly from the insert outs to aux inputs. (Takes away ability to pan.) You can use pairs that way, and spot mic's can be run through the channel strips.

The very latest series of "non Onyx" mixers really do have improved mic amps-you can hear it in the lower end. Also, they have reduced levels slightly to the buss which results in better mixes for those who haven't set up gain structure correctly. And probably for others, as well. They also have improved EQ. Annoyingly, they have no EQ bypass.

With the older boards, try not to need EQ. Still, the EQ was fine for cutting, and OK for barely perceptible boosts.

The Onyx mic amps do have a bit of color, so as a matter of principle, some shy away from them for "classical" use. However, I haven't heard a complaint from anyone who has actually used them for art music recording.

Finally, no one else seems bothered by this, but I think the low cut/high pass filter at the mic amp really bites. It's too steep. It creates a thick bump right above the corner frequency, and it messes up the stereo image as well. Using it really means reducing the channel strip LF fader as well, to remove that ugly thing. Sometimes, you really can get a better result by simply using the LF fader rather than the low cut feature. As I say, not a majority opinion.

You needn't hesitate to use recent Mackies. Some will be put off by the name, maybe.

[7rojo7]

I worked with an engineer producer who recorded a classical music album in his living room with a 1604 to an ADAT in 199x and won a grammy. He has nice mics though, and is a sensible, sensitive engineer.

[BrianHanke]

Originally Posted by 7rojo7

I worked with an engineer producer who recorded a classical music album in his living room with a 1604 to an ADAT in 199x and won a grammy. He has nice mics though, and is a sensible, sensitive engineer.

Interesting! What album was this?

[Teddy Ray]

Originally Posted by 7rojo7

I worked with an engineer producer who recorded a classical music album in his living room with a 1604 to an ADAT in 199x and won a grammy. He has nice mics though, and is a sensible, sensitive engineer.

Id love to hear that one too!

[Teddy Ray]

Marc Aubort uses one too, If I am not mistaken?

He is a Jedi if there ever was one.

[7rojo7]

sorry I've been sworn to secrecy. not one of your usual suspects though, this was when they first came out, I got one soon after and still have a VLZ from 96, it's missing an aux knob otherwise it still works 100%.

[Teddy Ray]

Originally Posted by 7rojo7

sorry I've been sworn to secrecy.

so why post it? I dont understand the "secrecy" thing. it is a grammy, for goodness sake. is the guy ashamed that he used a mackie or what? if so, that is nuts. these types of posts would be really helpful if they had some information attached to them, especially to people that havent the monney to buy the flavors of the week...but when you post something like that and follow it with "im sorry i cant give details" it only fuels more speculation and doubt...it just isn't helpful.

[NorseHorse]

Perhaps he's not truly proud of the recording. Just because something gets a Grammy doesn't mean it sounds the best.

Having used the original VLZs and newer VLZ3s, I never felt like I could get a great sound out of the original line. I've done at least one a cappella recording I was happy with using a VLZ3 - I didn't feel like the mixer was working "against" me like I did with the original. Still, I haven't compared them side-by-side to make a real imformative decision. I'd just as soon stick with something else.

[Marlan]

These boards are quite good for the money and I have used them for many years as line level mixers with external microphone preamps. There is no reason you can't make a beautiful recording on one of these boards provided you're in a good venue with good musicians and good microphones.

Personally, I prefer the Onyx series to the VLZ or VLZ3 preamps myself. I find them cleaner and quieter. These days I often take an Onyx 1620 on sessions to use as talkbalk, monitor control and to make a reference 2 track for the client. This is in tandem with my main multitrack rig which bypasses the board.

I will tell you that a lot of my clients who know what good audio sounds like the reference mixes I've made on the Onyx.

[BrianHanke]

Originally Posted by 7rojo7

sorry I've been sworn to secrecy. not one of your usual suspects though, this was when they first came out, I got one soon after and still have a VLZ from 96, it's missing an aux knob otherwise it still works 100%.

Hmm, can you give us any more hints? I just scanned the entire list of Grammy-winning classical albums from 1990-1999. The only one that I know for a fact was recorded in a living room was Horowitz's "The Last Recording," but that was in the maestro’s living room, not the engineer's.

[supoUSA]

Norse Horse is right. They're pretty much junk if you A/B it. But, the bigger picture is this - the consumer pretty much doesn't care. There's is very little prosumer equipment out there that doesn't do an adequate job. Everyone is mp3'ing everything anyway and listening in earbuds or a Bose of some sort which eq's everything to begin with. Only you and people in our field truly give a rats and you're not going to be hired based on the way your stuff sounds for your market. It'll be 10,000 other things so don't sweat it, really. The chia pet sold not because it's a marvel in gardening, but because it's crap and cheap. Your consumer expects it to sound close to how they remember hearing it and for .99 on itunes.

I just did an event on the Nagra VI I had for a few weeks testing, with B/K 4006's. I got no more accolades than normal. People don't notice. If this was video - different story. Audio - mp3 in the car or at the gym. Build your business doing what's easiest and works for you. I'll say this for mackie-you can beat the hell out of them and everyone knows how to use them which can be helpful in a lot of areas.

[John Brook]

Evisto, I began my recording career (reincarnation, actually) using the Mackie 1202 for classical work. It has a couple of problems which you might want to be aware of.

Line noise and RF noise seems to sneak in through routes unknown. At one early venue, a noisy florescent light in another room polluted the recording. Ugh. Since you'll probably not be working in a controlled environment, this can be an important consideration.

When I could afford it, I upgraded to an Ashley line mixer and a 4 ch pre amp unit by Sytek. Man, what a difference that made. Huge.

Later, I upgrade again.

Good luck.

John

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by John Brook

When I could afford it, I upgraded to an Ashley line mixer and a 4 ch pre amp unit by Sytek. Man, what a difference that made. Huge.

Later, I upgrade again.

..and again, and again, and again..


/Peter

[rumleymusic]

Personally, I prefer the Onyx series to the VLZ or VLZ3 preamps myself. I find them cleaner and quieter

Actually, I have always thought the opposite. The XDR2 preamps have slightly lower noise, more dynamic range, and are more "flat" than the onyx preamps, which are modeled after more vintage style preamps for a classic, smooth, and punchy sound. I use both, but I find the XDR2's are a little clearer.

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by John Brook

Line noise and RF noise seems to sneak in through routes unknown. At one early venue, a noisy florescent light in another room polluted the recording. Ugh. Since you'll probably not be working in a controlled environment, this can be an important consideration.

I've lived (and currently live) and work in one very difficult rf area (currently) and in the past I lived and worked in an extraordinarily difficult area with no problems using Mackie boards. Currently, there is a large commercial building that one of the super stations (TV) does remotes from a couple of times a year. I have my "real job" (musician) there and do in house recording. The TV folks were amazed to find out I had no RF problems with the Mackie and also a Tascam HD-P2. They had regularly recurring problems with the same mic lines. Their solution was to buy a bunch of single channel SD preamps. Often, RF problems are also determined by cable and mic's, and even more basic elements such as how the cables are wired, shell connections, integrity of the shield at the microphone end, etc. On the one and only occasion I had an RF "event," it was caused by mobile radios (not phones) and *only* was in the headphone circuit of the Mackie. Nary a trace in the recording.

Originally Posted by John Brook

When I could afford it, I upgraded to an Ashley line mixer and a 4 ch pre amp unit by Sytek. Man, what a difference that made. Huge.

A bit of trivia: the worst area I mentioned above is about 10 miles from the Ashley operation. Having seen and handled their products, they appear to be very solid. I've never tried one though. You'd think, after living a few miles away.........

It's nice to hear your thoughts on the improvement in your recordings that came with the Ashley. Most reports, which consistently positive, deal with the line mixers. I've not heard from anyone who has used a mic preamp onboard their products.

Edit: Oops, you're using the Sytek preamps.....Have you used any of Ashley's preamps?

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by supoUSA

Norse Horse is right. They're pretty much junk if you A/B it. But, the bigger picture is this - the consumer pretty much doesn't care. There's is very little prosumer equipment out there that doesn't do an adequate job. Everyone is mp3'ing everything anyway and listening in earbuds or a Bose of some sort which eq's everything to begin with. Only you and people in our field truly give a rats and you're not going to be hired based on the way your stuff sounds for your market. It'll be 10,000 other things so don't sweat it, really. The chia pet sold not because it's a marvel in gardening, but because it's crap and cheap. Your consumer expects it to sound close to how they remember hearing it and for .99 on itunes.

Do you need a vacation and/or some rest?

[7rojo7]

I have a bunch of secrets I guess I can't share here
I'm not about gossip
but I've seen alot and have actually been asked to be discrete
and I will remain so
If you don't believe or think it's interesting there's a spot on your user cp labelled ignore, it will save from making posts on mine

[avebr]

I may use some channels of Mackie if I'm out of better pres (like when you need 40 channels) - mostly for *some* spots or secondary things (that may end very low volume in mix).

I try to keep the most sensitive and important tracks (main pair, outtriggers, room, solists, ad. stereos,...) on my better pres, for sure.

Good mics can still sound good on Mackie pres.

"OK" or "not-so-good" mics can sound surprisingly better on excellent pres.

Excellent mics + excellent pres = heaven (if the room, musicians and instruments are also excellent!).

It's a game of possibilities, you must keep it in balance.



all the best,
ave.

[Teddy Ray]

Originally Posted by 7rojo7

I have a bunch of secrets I guess I can't share here
I'm not about gossip
but I've seen alot and have actually been asked to be discrete
and I will remain so
If you don't believe or think it's interesting there's a spot on your user cp labelled ignore, it will save from making posts on mine

but I dont get this, man.

you say "well I know an album that was made with such and such"

we ask what it is and you say

"oh man, thats a secret"

it just strikes me as--weird. i mean it does more damage than good...because either

1.) it doesnt exist

2.) the engineer is ashamed of it(which again makes one think that the engineer thinks it sounds bad.)

it doesnt warrant an ignore(and if you choose to ignore me, thats cool) but I dont see these posts as being helpful at all.

and saying "i have a bunch of secrets" i cant share here...i mean..what is that??

why even say you have secrets to begin with? Anyway, it is just confusing to me. but.whatever. off to bed.

[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"...

[John Brook]

Well, JEGG, if it were the cables, my RF problem should have continued when I switched to the Sytek. They stopped. I've been uning Pro-Co cables. Don't know what their reputation is, but I've been happy with them. The Mackie use a pseudo balanced in, and I suspect that was the culprit. Don't know how well the housing of the Mackie is grounded or shielded. The Sytek looks pretty solid. I have the Mackie manual around somewhere, but I don't know if they show case grounding. Or it could be that my Mackie just has a couple of bad solder joints, which are rectifying RF signals.

When I put the Mackie on my balanced power system, the Mackie noise dropped noticeably. That leads me to believe their power supply could use some beefing up.

The Ashley line mixer is pretty darn good. It's specs, FWIW, would have been high end audiophile not too long ago, and are nothing to sneeze at now. Didn't try the mike inputs, however, as there are only two of them.

[RobAnderson]

As long as you stay away from the EQ's and the mic-amps, Mackies can perform fairly well. Lots of classical FM radio broadcasts were mixed using the line inputs on the old Mackie 8-bus consoles.

The mic amps on the old Mackies (Micro series and VLZ-1's) were pretty bad. The newer VLZ and Onyx pre's are an improvement over the old ones, but they strike me as being a bit thin and bright, while somehow lacking the "air" or "openess" that you feel with good mic amps.

The newer VLZ-series suffer from some build-quality issues IMO. I had to return an 802 because of a 3 dB level mismatch between the left and right channels. The replacement is better, but is still not quite right. In addition, I recently measured the voltages on the 1/4" left main out (both on the hot and neutral with respect to ground), and found that the levels were slightly different (a few milliVolts, but still...).

I only ever really use the Mackies I own as line-level mixers - either as a summing mixer on live-to-2-track archival gigs (using external preamps), or to monitor and/or make reference mixes from multi-track recorders, and for those purposes they serve just fine. They are light, small, and durable and they get the job done.