Hey Karl ...
I think your headed in the right direction.
The AH is likely going to be an improvment .. if not because of the mic pres but in overall system and mix bus headroom. The AH pres are reported to be a bit less shrill than the mackie pres ... but as you point out at $50 a channel what can you expect? A useable utility pre is about all, imo. It would be interesting if you were to make a comparison yourself and post a 128kbp mp3 of it here.

I am also curious.. . how do the vlz pres in the Mackie compare to the vlz "pro" pres? I suspect there is little if any difference. A comparison of them would be nice as well ....

To be honest, I've never done a side by side with the mackies. If I buy the A&H (I'm sure I'll have to endure an ugly glare from SWMBO if I do) I will compare both Mackies to the A&H, because one of the Mackies go.

I have heard from one reliable source that when he had the opportunity to compare the VLZ to VLZ pro, he chose the VLZ. I ended up with one of each because the VLZ was advertised on eBAY as a VLZ Pro (you see a lot of that) and 6 months old. It was actually 6 years old. Even if I like the older VLZ a little better, I think I'll sell that one because it isn't as clean (internally) as I would like.

The only problem I have with doing a comparison between preamps, is I'm just a recording guy - aside from a singing daughter (age 14) I don't have much active musical talent in the house. I may have to bribe a couple of folks to come and give my mics a good workout if I end up with 3 mixers on my floor.

It would be nice if you could do that.

Pick a LD condenser and record a nice acoustic guitar with it. Have the player re do the performance for each pre as closely as possible and try to match the gain and mic position... or if you have them, a pair of sd condensers placed as close to each other as possible and routed to different pres ... same performance, mic type, different pre ..

I find acoustic guitar demonstrates the strengths and weakness's of pres and mics the best.

'zaktly what I was thinking. I have a pair of NT5s (matched) I could stick together for a/b. My daughter plays guitar, but at this point smooth chord changes are a triumph - I'm not sure folks would want to listen to that test. :wink:

Well, I put a deposit on the A&H today - GC has to ship it in from a different store, so I won't get it until next week. Looks like I have to find a capable guitar picker next week.

FYI: A new version of the Mix Wizard is due out shortly which is why GC is blowing out the older version,

Thanks for the FYI - I had seen that. I don't mind buying the previous generation - it means I can probably afford it.

I use an older A&H board and I absolutely love it for project studio stuff. It's the MixWizard 20:8:2 (http://).

They don't make it anymore, but it has very similar pre's to the 16:2 MixWizards. They have a transparent, clean sound, not gritty and sharp like the Mackies. Also, they warm up really nicely if you run them "hot", (in the +6 or so range on the meters.)

I think that in this price range, you can't really find any better bang for the buck than the A&H boards (except maybe the Soundcraft stuff, but I've never heard one of those boards before.)

Eric

I have a potential client coming over on Saturday - She wants to cut a test track, so I have asked her to play for a few A/B tracks as well.

I'll put my NT5s on her guitar and run them into the different mixers. I'll do A/B recordings of the two mackies (VLZ, VLZ Pro) and the A&H. I might try double micing her vocal too - she sings from way back in her throat - No idea what mic I'm going to end up using on her.

http://www.cheap-tracks.com/requipment.htm

I'm looking forward to it! It's nice of you to do this for us ...

Well, the results are in, but samples are not yet ready. I'll post those in a fresh thread later tonight.

IMHO - not much to debate.

#1 - A&H
#2 - Mackie VLZ
#3 - Mackie VLZ Pro

I'll be selling the VLZ Pro as a result. The VLZ has a few slightly noisy faders, but it clearly sounds (a little bit) better.

mix wizard 3 is out as of last week

Great job man. However it might be a little too late as far as the new Mackie's ONYX coming out (one day) and the fact that the new A&H mix wizard 3 is also out as of last week. This is what I want to know about. I will buy either one that is better. Both are about $1200
regardless, great job man
I have heard the same from others in the industry 8)

Way too much is made of preamps, granted they are an important stage of the recording chain, however they are miniscule compared the importance of eq and good compression. In other words you're way better off with really good compression and eq and recording with Mackie pre's than you would be spending alot of money on botique preamps and junky eq and compression. But even more important is your level of skill at working with eq and compression and effects, balance mix etc... Yea sure an acoustic guitar sounds great through a really nice Avalon mic pre, but by the time you eq and compress the hec out of it ( which you must do inorder to fit it into a mix nomatter what mic pre you are using) the difference between the Mackie pre and the Avalon become much more subtle, where as the difference between good eq and compression can be great. However if you are a purist recording guy, like into Jazz or classical, then the importance for a Hi-fi mic pre is greatly increased, But for rock, pop and hiphop your money is much better spent on good compression and eq.

brokemusician2,
I find your remarks to be of interest. What would you consider to be a good compressor and EQ?

brokemusician2 wrote: Way too much is made of preamps, granted they are an important stage of the recording chain, however they are miniscule compared the importance of eq and good compression. In other words you're way better off with really good compression and eq and recording with Mackie pre's than you would be spending alot of money on botique preamps and junky eq and compression. But even more important is your level of skill at working with eq and compression and effects, balance mix etc... Yea sure an acoustic guitar sounds great through a really nice Avalon mic pre, but by the time you eq and compress the hec out of it ( which you must do inorder to fit it into a mix nomatter what mic pre you are using) the difference between the Mackie pre and the Avalon become much more subtle, where as the difference between good eq and compression can be great. However if you are a purist recording guy, like into Jazz or classical, then the importance for a Hi-fi mic pre is greatly increased, But for rock, pop and hiphop your money is much better spent on good compression and eq.

Okay, I'm trying to figure out whether it was a bong or a crack-pipe that you hit before writing this reply...I'm not trying to start a flame, but talk to any of the top guys in the industry and they will tell you that the less eq and compression they have to use the better. A good signal chain from Player->Good Mic->Good Mic Placement (which by the way, is the best eq of all)->Good Pre-amp->Media is the only way to get good sound. While eq and compression shouldn't be tossed off as afterthoughts, they certainly are not as important as the front-end signal chain!

For eq, my philosophy has always been - if I have to boost or cut more than 3db, I've done something wrong. (There are occassional exceptions, but they are rare and quite specific.) Of course, I always prefer cutting - boosting can exagerate phase issues and create unwanted distortion.

As for compressors - there are tons of great compressors out there (and tons of bad ones out there too), but the simple fact is, no matter how good the compressor, it cannot make a piss-poor signal any better, only sqaush it all together.

Overall, remember - gear is not the most important element of recording - it's experience and the ability to listen for all aspects of the music.

Just a thought...
J... 8-)

Way too much is made of preamps...

I would somewhat agree only if you used the word cheap or those designed to be simple, basic transparant types. But anyone that owns and has used hgih quality designed and great sounding preamps, colored or transparant will tell you otherwise.

If anything, compression is way more over-rated, mis-understood, overused and abused. Compression is NOT always needed nor does it always make things sound better.

And direct experience has taught me that proper choice of a good to great mic, great mic preamp and mic placement do more to getting the best of tone than eq or eq and compression does.

Like all things in your audio chain, it can only be as good as the weakest link be it at the source, the mic, the mic pre, comp, eq or anythig else in the path.

brokemusician2,
I am still curious, what you think a good compressor or EQ is?

Ok here's what I mean, Iv'e got a studio with vintage Neve pre's, API 312's, John Hardy 990's, Avalon mic pre's, and some high quality custom built tube pre's that I built myself, so I'm no stranger to the preamp game. Once I figured out how to be a decent engineer, I figured out that it was mostly B.S. fueled by I'm not exactly sure what because I've found clearly that other things in the chain affect the color of the sound more immensly, like the mic for example!, even the recording device or converters etc..has more to do with the sound than the preamps. If I were recording a vocal or any other sound that's as dynamic as a vocal I would much rather record a vocal through my Mackie pre's and compress it through a Urie 1176 than record it through an Avalon and then compress it through a cheap DBX compressor that would essentially ruin the sound entirely. If I'm given some good eq 1073's, pultech, and great compression like the vintage neve compressor, and Urie 1176's, La2a's etc.. I could make a mix that would sound absolutely killer and that was only recorded on cheap Mackie pre's vs. the mic pre's of my choice and mixed with crappy eq, and cheap compression, you might as well forget it.

Mic pre's are cool but the hoopla is way over done, there really are more important considerations. Inexpensive but "good" sounding pre's and killer outboard gear will take you a lot further than just a bunch of botique preamps. I think a lot of the big focus on pre's has been that they are affordable compared to what it really takes to make great records. We tend to focus and talk about what we can afford don't we? Pop music and rock is all about the diberate attempt to manipulate the sound but that's just a general statement, of course some things are better off left alone. Example electric guitar itself is a major manipulation of sound. I've met and worked with many pro's who have big hits and your jaw would hit the floor when you wittness the techniques they use to manipulate sound, running drum mixes through Sansamps, and cheap wacky devices, believe me the preamp gets way lost once it's been run through the gammut of what these guy's are doing.

Having said all that I still record my guitars and snare drums through a vintage neve, but I can pretty much get the same sound if I run a Mackie pre through a vintage 1176, or a Pultech eq. And further more I recently heard this royer ribbon mic that made recording guitars with a Neve preamp completely insignificant compared to what the mic is actually doing. Conclusion:tools are tools but dollar for dollar your money is way better off spent on mics eq and compression however that equation changes a little or a lot actually if you are recording purist type music, like classical or Jazz, but even then the mics are way more important than spending a ton on these mic pre's.

pre amp

I too thought a good pre-amp would serve me better than a good compressor. My next purchase was gonna be an Avalon 737sp. Does this mean a 747sp would be better?
Or just a compressor?
I wish a had $2000 to throw around, but I dont. Anybody else agree with what is being said?

In response to the original question, I'll give my subjective opinion on the Mix Wizard and Mackie pre's. I think most people would hear the lower end A&H as being more musical than the Mackie's but others would hear them as being less linear or rolled off highs, more distortion etc... The A&H would probably be a little more noisy than the Mackie, though I don't know that for a fact. The A&H board has way better EQ, that's for sure but the board is less clear and open in general than the Mackie, but it does sound cool in a vintage sort of way. The Mackie's are clean but like someone mentioned earlier they have a shrill to them or coldness. Alot would depend on how the converters in the Motu sound, don't quote me on this but as I recall they are pretty muddy sounding, so in that case I might go with the Mackie, but either way you went wouldn't make that big of a difference. You'll have to find away to make great music with either or.

brokemusician2,
Thanks for the clarification ... I was just wondering ... and hoping you weren't going to come back with someting like a RNC or a Distressor. :shock:

While I don't agree with some of what you say .. I do agree with much of it.

For myself, I have found that good pres make more of a difference than you think they do. A good pre can make even a cheap dynamic mic like a 57 sound so much better .. I agree that good compression like an 1176 or LA2a is an invaluable part of the recording chain.. I have long been the proud owner of a Manley EL OP, 1178 and a pair of LA4's, as well as having previously owned a LA 2a and LA3s ... and I would never want to be without them. Where you and I differ is I think pres matter as well .. That's cool ..

I didn't say they didn't matter, hence I've got a bunch of cool mic pre's. They're just a lot lower on the food chain than people realize. For example someone like a Daniel Lanois U2's producer would find Neve preamps almost useless without the eq to go along with them, without the eq at some point in the chain either in the mixdown or tracking stage, then you can't sculpt a good mix. One way or another you are going to have to eq, that can happen in the mic stage (which almost can never be 100% counted on unless you're Tom Petty's crew and you have $100,000 dollars in mics and 50 guitar amps and snare drums to audition) eq'ing in the tracking stage or eq'ing in the mixdown stage. A bunch of decent clean but inexpensive mic pre's, like the Mackies or maybe some of those Presonus or a few others out there can go along way with the right outboard gear.

For example the guy who originally posted this question is considering preamps when in actuality he should only be considering some good converters, I wouldn't even think of comming in an out of one of those Motu boxes. He would get way more mileage out of some good converters.

I totally disagree with that. Converters before quality pres is silly IMO. What's the point of great conversion when the pres suck? Garbage in / out ... good conversion of crap is still crap, only converted well. I really believe the average user will find more improvment with good mic pres, than anything else.

I guess you rely more on EQ than I do ... I always try to use mic choice and placement before resorting to the use of eq .. and I personally find the EQ in the DAW to work fine for all but the most difficult sources (I use Cubase which has a very nice powerful 4 band full parametric EQ).

I will use outboard EQ on kicks, snares (Amek/Neve 9098) and perhaps (if really needed) bass (Millennia STT-1) at the tracking stage. Never on vocals, and rarely on guitars. I will eq at the amp before using an outboard EQ, EQ on on the console or EQ in the DAW.

Okay, so you're not as insane as I thought you were originally, but still, you've got some "unique" ideas about gear. All in all, I think too much emphasis is placed on much of the gear we use. A lot of that has to do with marketing hype and "keeping up with the Jones's."

There are tons of good mics, mic pre's, compressors, eq's, consoles, and so on, but so many people are driven more by the name on the front of the box than the sound of the equipment. True, some pieces of equipment are prized for their elusive qualities, but not every piece of gear.

I get tickled when I see one of these posts where someone states, "Well I tried this *instert multi-thousand dollar mic here* with these *insert multi-thousand dollar pre-amps here* and I didn't like the sound, so I bought this other multi thousand dollar preamp and now it's all better." Damn, there must be a lot of rich engineers on this forum! I know some of these guys out there really do have the gear, but I'm starting to think that some people throw these names out there to feel special!

The fact is, can 99% of the population out there hear the difference between a Neve console and an API console, or for that matter a Mackie? No.

Truthfully, we put too much emphasis on gear alltogether. Good gear will always be good gear and will always make our jobs easier, but it is not the answer to anyone's problem.

BTW, Kurt's right - garbage in/garbage out. What good is new converters if you have a crappy sound going in (regardless of the reason)? You'll just be listening to crap made out of 1's and 0's instead of just plain crap.

J...

can 99% of the population out there hear the difference between a Neve console and an API console, or for that matter a Mackie?

Well I can and I know lots of other people who can ... and I know that recordings done with Neve and API's will sound better given the same talent .. Even if 99% of the listeners may not hear the difference (I do question that), I can hear the difference and I record as much for my own satisfaction as for others ... and I see no reason to mix to the lowest denominator/factor .. IMO that's the problem with a lot of the audio these days .. this prevailing concept of "If it's loud, if the bass goes "fommbee foombee" and the highs go "tingie tingie", then it's good enough ...

Okay, so you're not as insane as I thought you were originally, but still, you've got some "unique" ideas about gear

Not sure what that means but I really don't think any of my ideas or concepts are outside the envelope of mainstream thought in the professional audio community. I just don't need to sugar coat my thoughts because being retired, it doesn't matter who I piss off anymore.. I no longer have any financial stake in the business, so I am free to speak my mind openly.

I think you have the whole thing backwards ... the problem is the manufacturers of all the mid priced crap that claim their products perform as well as their higher end counterparts .. I have yet to hear a cheap pre that sounds as good as a Neve or an API ... same with comps and mics .. Yet the companies that make this "affordable" gear go on exploiting the fact that most of their customers, not having expierence with situations where pro gear was used all the time, for everthing, don't know the difference ... and so they tell them "It sounds as good as the expensive stuff" and the buyer ( not wanting to spend thousands ) slurps it up ..

Kurt Foster wrote:

can 99% of the population out there hear the difference between a Neve console and an API console, or for that matter a Mackie?

Well I can and I know lots of other people who can ... and I know that recordings done with Neve and API's will sound better given the same talent .. Even if 99% of the listeners may not hear the difference (I do question that), I can hear the difference and I record as much for my own satisfaction as for others ... and I see no reason to mix to the lowest denominator/factor .. IMO that's the problem with a lot of the audio these days .. this prevailing concept of "If it's loud, if the bass goes "fommbee foombee" and the highs go "tingie tingie", then it's good enough ...

Whoa Kurt!! Com'on dude, we're on the same team here. I can hear the difference too, but a lot of the younger, broke engineers out there can't. I'm not saying they shouldn't strive to have good gear, and certainly I would never expect that someone would be happy with half-assed. But for most of these guys, a $100,000+ studio is out of the realm of possibility.

I also mentioned "Good gear will always be good gear and will always make our jobs easier..." Doesn't this agree with your philosophy?

Kurt Foster wrote:

Okay, so you're not as insane as I thought you were originally, but still, you've got some "unique" ideas about gear

Not sure what that means but I really don't think any of my ideas or concepts are outside the envelope of mainstream thought in the professional audio community. I just don't need to sugar coat my thoughts because being retired, it doesn't matter who I piss off anymore.. I no longer have any financial stake in the business, so I am free to speak my mind openly.

That was aimed at "Brokemusician2", not you. His ideas are fairly radical, but once he explained his line of thinking, it wasn't near as bad as I thought it was.

Kurt Foster wrote:

I think you have the whole thing backwards ... the problem is the manufacturers of all the mid priced crap that claim their products perform as well as their higher end counterparts .. I have yet to hear a cheap pre that sounds as good as a Neve or an API ... same with comps and mics .. Yet the companies that make this "affordable" gear go on exploiting the fact that most of their customers, not having expierence with situations where pro gear was used all the time, for everthing, don't know the difference ... and so they tell them "It sounds as good as the expensive stuff" and the buyer ( not wanting to spend thousands ) slurps it up ..

I don't disagree with you in the slightest. What I was suggesting when I stated that "A lot of that has to do with marketing hype and "keeping up with the Jones's."," I was making much the same point you are above. When I see an advertisement hyping a $600 ART Preamp as being "just like an Avalon" tihs is the kind of hype and "name brand" reliance that I'm referring to.

I agree with the majority of what you post on this forum, and I think maybe a miscommunication (perhaps my poor wording) has got you thinking that I'm advocating mixing with inferior gear. My guiding principle has always been, get the best gear you can afford, avoid fads and trends, stay educated, and listen...

I still stand behind my statement in the above posting:
"There are tons of good mics, mic pre's, compressors, eq's, consoles, and so on, but so many people are driven more by the name on the front of the box than the sound of the equipment. True, some pieces of equipment are prized for their elusive qualities, but not every piece of gear."

Cheers!
J... :)

"There are tons of good mics, mic pre's, compressors, eq's, consoles, and so on, but so many people are driven more by the name on the front of the box than the sound of the equipment. True, some pieces of equipment are prized for their elusive qualities, but not every piece of gear."

Agreed! I see people buying pre amps that are being called "Neves" when in reality these pres were never made by Neve. I even saw someone selling some modules of "Neve" 1272's that were racked up on panels with the original N Neve logo .... even though Neve never made a 1272 ...

It is "buyer beware" ... I think people who do not know what they are getting should wait until they do .. That takes getting an education, learning about the history of the recording business and who was using what ..

Kurt Foster wrote: I totally disagree with that. Converters before quality pres is silly IMO. What's the point of great conversion when the pres suck? Garbage in / out ... good conversion of crap is still crap, only converted well. I really believe the average user will find more improvment with good mic pres, than anything else.

I completely emphaticaly disagree with you. Have you ever heard some of these cheap converters, they destroy the sound 10 times more than a Mackie pre vs. a Neve pre, or Avalon pre. The difference between an Avalon pre, Neve pre, and Mackie pre could be viewed as subjective with tonal variations, granted the Neve and Avalon would come out sounding a little more full and Hi-fi sounding but it's not as huge as you make it out to be, but some of these converters is like running your sound through a meat grinder. Listen to a M- box for example, my Avalon M4 preamp or my John Hardy's can't make up for the M-box converters no matter how hard I try. Another example, that new remake "Drift away" hit was recorded with nothing but Mackie pre's because I know the producer/engineer and he thinks the whole preamp buisness is all B.S. and he uses nothing but Mackie pre's, I know other producers with huge hits that exclusively use Mackie preamps. Major hits have been recorded with very inexpensive Mackie preamps, so tell the little guy's the truth and stop giving them excuses to blame their bad mixes, poor playing, crappy sounding drums or cymbals etc... A good preamp is important but you don't have to spend a lot of money to get good preamps, the Focus rite stuff which I constantly hear these forum users praise is nothing but a decent transformer with a 5534 chip- so basically crap parts sold for a ton of money because of the name focus rite- and they do sound pretty good. So many other things should be considered before buying extremely expensive preamps, like how's your room sound, does your acoustic guitar sound good?, how do the drums sound? how about the mics, and mic placement, then there is the player himself, and the song and music content etc... All of the really good engineers I know all appreciate a good preamp, but they laugh at the fuss made on these forums about preamps, because in the real world they are not at the top of the list, especaially in leu of the very good sounding but affordable pramps that are available today.

I was avoiding getting into this tired old argument but a few points I feel need to be made. It is obvious that some of us hang in much different circles. Having great gear doesn't guarentee anything other than you being able to claim you have great gear. Great results can be made from half ass gear but it takes more effort, time and ability to compromise. Who wants to do that if you don't have to? Having great gear makes the job easier and even a pure joy and pleasure to work with. It can even motivate and inspire.

Preamps do make a difference. In many cases they make a very big difference. In most cases it is the guys that don't own great gear like preamps and such that tout how they are overblown or not really necessary. If this was even close to being true, then the top recording engineers wouldn't make such a fuss over it nor spend their own money dragging around their personal collection to every gig. If you really think you don't ever need anything other than mackie, then good for you. Spend your money where you think it will do YOU the most good. But... preamps do make a difference. Now i will whole heartedly agree that the majority of preamps that are available, and that people buy, and that people agonize over is indeed a waste of time.

Sure you can record a hit done with only a mackie. But who would want to or choose to when there are so many more tools to use that are so much better in doing that job? I could hammer nails with a wooden mallet, but it sure wouldn't be the tool I would prefer to use. A hit can be made from 4-track cassette recordings. Being a hit has very little to do with audio quality.

The Focusrite mic pre could be made from the rejects of Fisher-Price play school speak-n-spell toys, it still is a great sounding preamp despite what parts are inside it. And I would seriously doubt very much that a seasoned pro would choose a mackie mic over the Focusrite if given a choice under any conditions.

And as for converters, the current batch of converters in any product being made today are far greater in quality than the DAT, ADAT and CD recorders/players from only a few years ago that many hits were recorded and listened to on and thry are perfectly acceptable for more 90% of the people who record. Having a great front end wiith the instrument, mic and preamp become even more important with cheap conveters because using a crap front end with crap converters just makes things much worse.