Mackie VLZ Pro vs. VLZ3

[Tobiah[_4_]]

I need to replace my 1202VLZ PRO, and I can get a good deal ($100) on
a used 1402VLZ PRO. I'm just wondering if there is anything other than
hype in the VLZ3 models that should have me considering them instead.

Thanks,

Tobiah

[Mike Rivers]

On 8/1/2011 9:54 AM, Tobiah wrote:

> I'm just wondering if there is anything
> other than
> hype in the VLZ3 models that should have me considering them
> instead.

There are a couple of differences that you might find worth
while. One is that they revised the internal levels so that
it's harder to overdrive the mix bus. That was a common
problem with the VLZ and VLZ Pro. You may have read advice
(here and other places of ill repute) to set the master or
submasters if you're using them up full and keep the channel
levels lower than the Unity point to avoid clipping the bus.
On the VLZ3, they lowered the levels feeding the bus and put
more gain in the output stage. They were able to do that
because ten years later there were quieter ICs.

The other significant difference, and I can only say this
about the 1604 because that's the only one I've tested
(though I have a 1402 VLZ3 coming) is that the mid-range EQ
bandwidth is a little narrower on the VLZ3. I had a 1604 VLZ
and VLZ3 set up side-by side and found that I could get a
good mix quicker using the EQ with the VLZ3.

I have a review of the VLZ3 on my web site. You might find
that informative.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Tobiah[_4_]]

>> I'm just wondering if there is anything
>> other than
>> hype in the VLZ3 models that should have me considering them
>> instead.
>
> There are a couple of differences that you might find worth while.

Thanks for the info. I ended up getting the hardly-used 1402 VLZ Pro
for $80, which was enough lure to overcome the small advantages afforded
by the VLZ3. I'll wait for the VLZ7...

Tobiah

[Scott Dorsey]

Tobiah > wrote:
>>> I'm just wondering if there is anything
>>> other than
>>> hype in the VLZ3 models that should have me considering them
>>> instead.
>>
>> There are a couple of differences that you might find worth while.
>
>Thanks for the info. I ended up getting the hardly-used 1402 VLZ Pro
>for $80, which was enough lure to overcome the small advantages afforded
>by the VLZ3. I'll wait for the VLZ7...

Hold out for the Onyx and get an EQ defeat button....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Tobiah[_4_]]

>> Thanks for the info. I ended up getting the hardly-used 1402 VLZ Pro
>> for $80, which was enough lure to overcome the small advantages afforded
>> by the VLZ3. I'll wait for the VLZ7...
>
> Hold out for the Onyx and get an EQ defeat button....

I assume that I would want that because the EQ stage does not leave the
signal untouched, even when all of the knobs are zeroed. Are we talking
about added noise, or distortion?. Would it be enough to make any
audible or measurable difference? I notice that the inserts are
Pre-EQ, so there is no other way to bypass the EQ save the AUX or
Tape inputs. Now that I think about it, I'd much rather have had
them omit the EQ altogether. It would have made the footprint
much smaller. If I do twist one of those knobs, it's usually to
boost the high band so that I can better judge the noise level
of one of the channels.

Still looking at the Block Diagram, I see referenced, an LED that is
meant to indicate PFL/AFL Solo mode. I don't see one on the unit.

Tobiah

[Mike Rivers]

On 8/2/2011 11:32 AM, Tobiah wrote:

>> Hold out for the Onyx and get an EQ defeat button....

> I assume that I would want that because the EQ stage does
> not leave the
> signal untouched, even when all of the knobs are zeroed. Are
> we talking
> about added noise, or distortion?.

In the VLZ series, the EQ is always in the signal path
whether you need it or not. You can never perfectly zero it
out with just the knobs and the panel markings, and of
course the more electronics in the path, the more distortion
(of which noise is a type).

> Would it be enough to make any
> audible or measurable difference?

Measurable? Yes. Audible? Depends on what you're listening
to. If it's the PA mixer for a band in a bar, not likely. If
it's for recording a track with a good microphone in a quiet
space, maybe you can get slightly lower noise without it.

> I notice that the inserts are
> Pre-EQ, so there is no other way to bypass the EQ save the
> AUX or Tape inputs.

Some people use the Insert Sends for recording in order to
bypass everything but the mic preamp.

> Now that I think about it, I'd much rather have
> had them omit the EQ altogether. It would have made the footprint
> much smaller.

Well, you're looking at the wrong mixer. Most people want
MORE EQ. I think you have Audioforum psychosis. You're
worried about things that you haven't heard yet.

> If I do twist one of those knobs, it's usually to
> boost the high band so that I can better judge the noise level
> of one of the channels.

That's the silliest use of EQ knobs that I've heard yet. If
you can't hear the noise without boosting it, why are you
concerned about it?

> Still looking at the Block Diagram, I see referenced, an LED
> that is
> meant to indicate PFL/AFL Solo mode. I don't see one on the
> unit.

On the front panel, that's the LED labeled LEVEL SET to the
right of the meters. That goes on when you solo a channel
and it's in the PFL ("Level Set") mode.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Scott Dorsey]

Tobiah > wrote:
>>> Thanks for the info. I ended up getting the hardly-used 1402 VLZ Pro
>>> for $80, which was enough lure to overcome the small advantages afforded
>>> by the VLZ3. I'll wait for the VLZ7...
>>
>> Hold out for the Onyx and get an EQ defeat button....
>
>I assume that I would want that because the EQ stage does not leave the
>signal untouched, even when all of the knobs are zeroed. Are we talking
>about added noise, or distortion?. Would it be enough to make any
>audible or measurable difference?

Yes, there is audible coloration (distortion) from just about any EQ
network. So you want to be able to remove it when you aren't using it.

Sometimes, though, you want to be able to quickly enable and disable the
EQ also. For example, when someone is using the same mike for singing
and playing the flute. You probably want some fairly radical EQ on a
close-miked flute that you don't want on vocals. The EQ bypass makes
going from one to the other very fast.

I notice that the inserts are
>Pre-EQ, so there is no other way to bypass the EQ save the AUX or
>Tape inputs. Now that I think about it, I'd much rather have had
>them omit the EQ altogether. It would have made the footprint
>much smaller. If I do twist one of those knobs, it's usually to
>boost the high band so that I can better judge the noise level
>of one of the channels.

EQ is nice to have, but it's also nice to be able to turn off.

If you need only a couple of channels and don't need EQ, build yourself
an attenuator panel and use it with some commercial preamps.

>Still looking at the Block Diagram, I see referenced, an LED that is
>meant to indicate PFL/AFL Solo mode. I don't see one on the unit.

Dunno.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Tobiah[_4_]]

>> Now that I think about it, I'd much rather have
>> had them omit the EQ altogether. It would have made the footprint
>> much smaller.
>
> Well, you're looking at the wrong mixer. Most people want MORE EQ. I
> think you have Audioforum psychosis. You're worried about things that
> you haven't heard yet.

I'm not worried. I was just saying that I hardly ever twist the
EQ knobs, and if they were gone altogether, the smaller footprint
would be worth it.

I use the mixer as a convenient way to route stuff into my audio
interface. If I have any EQ needs, I'll do it in the computer
where I have all the EQ I will likely need.



>> If I do twist one of those knobs, it's usually to
>> boost the high band so that I can better judge the noise level
>> of one of the channels.
>
> That's the silliest use of EQ knobs that I've heard yet. If you can't
> hear the noise without boosting it, why are you concerned about it?

I don't find it to be silly. I plug something into the mixer,
and give the high-EQ a twist to get a better lens on the nasty
stuff that may be coming out of that device. The fact that I
can't hear the noise as well without boosting the EQ does not
mean that that noise will not be a deficit to me at some stage later.

Tobiah

[david correia]

In article >,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> Tobiah > wrote:
> >>> Thanks for the info. I ended up getting the hardly-used 1402 VLZ Pro
> >>> for $80, which was enough lure to overcome the small advantages afforded
> >>> by the VLZ3. I'll wait for the VLZ7...
> >>
> >> Hold out for the Onyx and get an EQ defeat button....
> >
> >I assume that I would want that because the EQ stage does not leave the
> >signal untouched, even when all of the knobs are zeroed. Are we talking
> >about added noise, or distortion?. Would it be enough to make any
> >audible or measurable difference?
>
> Yes, there is audible coloration (distortion) from just about any EQ
> network. So you want to be able to remove it when you aren't using it.
>
> Sometimes, though, you want to be able to quickly enable and disable the
> EQ also. For example, when someone is using the same mike for singing
> and playing the flute. You probably want some fairly radical EQ on a
> close-miked flute that you don't want on vocals. The EQ bypass makes
> going from one to the other very fast.




Personally, I'd include a phase/polarity button before an EQ bypass.

Is there such a thing in any cheepee small mixer?



David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

david correia wrote:
<snip>
>
> Personally, I'd include a phase/polarity button before an EQ bypass.
>
> Is there such a thing in any cheepee small mixer?
>

Just rotate the XLR 180 degrees.

>
>
> David Correia
> www.Celebrationsound.com

--
Les Cargill

[Mike Rivers]

On 8/3/2011 2:44 AM, david correia wrote:

> Personally, I'd include a phase/polarity button before an EQ bypass.
> Is there such a thing in any cheepee small mixer?

Small, yes. Cheap, no. Probably the best price/performance
combination with a polarity switch around today is the
PreSonus StudioLive. The 16 channel version is about $2,000
(tales of B-Stock or eBay deals as low as $1,500). You have
to like using a digital mixer, though.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mr Soul]

I've owned both a 1202VLZ PRO and 1202VLZ3 and I love 'em. I run my
entire band through one while recording separate tracks at the same
time, with excellent sound quality. In addition, the VLZ3 is my main
studio pre-amp. It's hard to beat that for $300.

Mike C
http://www.MikeCressey.com

[Sean Conolly]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/3/2011 2:44 AM, david correia wrote:
>
>> Personally, I'd include a phase/polarity button before an EQ bypass.
>> Is there such a thing in any cheepee small mixer?
>
> Small, yes. Cheap, no. Probably the best price/performance combination
> with a polarity switch around today is the PreSonus StudioLive. The 16
> channel version is about $2,000 (tales of B-Stock or eBay deals as low as
> $1,500). You have to like using a digital mixer, though.

FYI - they've released a new version, the 16.0.2, that seems to have a MAP
of $1300. It has 12 XLR ins and 4 aux busses, so it's enough for a typical
bar band but not much more.

Sean