Newer Mackie VLZ3 preamps really better?

[Tobiah]

I had a scratchy 'control room' pot on my 1202VLZPro. I called
Mackie, and they sent me a new pot free of charge. Good enough.
After a lengthy disassembly, I located the offending pot. Two
physical anchors, and 6 electronic connectors soldered to a
tightly packed circuit board. I almost backed out, but instead
plunged forward. I clipped the old pot out with dikes so that
I could heat and remove each of the connectors one at a time.
I put the new pot in, and tested the board before reassembly(!).

The control room knob know has no effect. It is as though
it is always cranked full on. Bummer (way better than
full off though!). The left VU meter
goes out sometimes too, however the signal is still fine.

I checked the connections 100 times, and looked for bridged
connectors, etc. Oh, well, I finally gave up, and put the
unit back together. Given that the mixer is sitting on top
of a stereo amplifier that I use for monitoring, the mixer
is still usable, because I can control the volume from the amp,
and plug my headphones in there when I need them.

Still, this would be a great excuse to upgrade the mixer.
There have been two generations of this mixer since the VLZPro.

So, my real question, is whether there is any truth to
Mackie's claim that the VLZ3 preamps are even quieter than
the VLZPro pre's. If I knew that the noise was appreciably
lower in the VLZ3 pre's, I would probably shell out the $300
for a new mixer.

Thanks,

Toby

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Tobiah]

Also, what about the Mackie Onyx 1220? Again, I wouldn't
mind dropping the money if I knew that I would be upgrading
my preamps. Would I be better of buying a nice stand alone
stereo mic pre for around the same money, and living with
my hobbled mixer?

Thanks,

Toby

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 14, 12:17 am, Tobiah > wrote:

> So, my real question, is whether there is any truth to
> Mackie's claim that the VLZ3 preamps are even quieter than
> the VLZPro pre's.

Measurably, just barely enough to advertise, but given the sketchy
description of how you use the mixer I doubt you'd notice the
difference. The biggest improvements in the VLZ3 are in the
equalization circuitry (there's less interaction between bands) and
the internal headroom, which is important when you have a lot of
channels going into the mix.

Too bad you botched your attempted repair, but sooner or later you're
going to need a new mixer. What are your alternatives? Is a Behrenger
good enough? Would you be able to take advantage of the improved (yes,
they really are) mic inputs on the Onyx? What mics are you using? What
are you recording? And what are you doing with those recordings?

> Would I be better of buying a nice stand alone stereo mic pre for around
> the same money, and living with my hobbled mixer?

Depends. If the only thing wrong with your mixer is in the monitor
section, you can live with that for a long time. But these things
don't last forever. If you had a problem with one pot, you'll have a
problem with another pot soon. When do you want it to end? It's like
when do you buy a new set of tires, and when do you buy a new car?

[Scott Dorsey]

Tobiah > wrote:
>I had a scratchy 'control room' pot on my 1202VLZPro. I called
>Mackie, and they sent me a new pot free of charge. Good enough.
>After a lengthy disassembly, I located the offending pot. Two
>physical anchors, and 6 electronic connectors soldered to a
>tightly packed circuit board. I almost backed out, but instead
>plunged forward. I clipped the old pot out with dikes so that
>I could heat and remove each of the connectors one at a time.
>I put the new pot in, and tested the board before reassembly(!).
>
>The control room knob know has no effect. It is as though
>it is always cranked full on. Bummer (way better than
>full off though!). The left VU meter
>goes out sometimes too, however the signal is still fine.

You lifted the ground pad. Check it with a meter. You will have to
add a tag wire from the pin to a ground point now.

It is _possible_ you overheated and damaged the new pot, but the
meter will tell you that also. That's a lot less likely.

>I checked the connections 100 times, and looked for bridged
>connectors, etc. Oh, well, I finally gave up, and put the
>unit back together. Given that the mixer is sitting on top
>of a stereo amplifier that I use for monitoring, the mixer
>is still usable, because I can control the volume from the amp,
>and plug my headphones in there when I need them.

It's not bridged, it's open. No matter where you move the pot, the
bottom of the wiper is not connected to ground so you're only changing
a small series resistance.

>So, my real question, is whether there is any truth to
>Mackie's claim that the VLZ3 preamps are even quieter than
>the VLZPro pre's. If I knew that the noise was appreciably
>lower in the VLZ3 pre's, I would probably shell out the $300
>for a new mixer.

The Onyx preamps are definitely a step up from the VLZ, and what is
more, the EQ on the Onyx consoles is actually usable. I think it is
a definite step up. Still, fix your old console; I suspect it is
just a matter of adding a quarter inch of tag wire to fix the damaged
ground lead.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Tobiah]

Mike Rivers wrote:

>> So, my real question, is whether there is any truth to
>> Mackie's claim that the VLZ3 preamps are even quieter than
>> the VLZPro pre's.
>
> Measurably, just barely enough to advertise, but given the sketchy
> description of how you use the mixer I doubt you'd notice the
> difference.

I find that a strange response. All I have told you is that the mixer
is sitting on top of the amplifier that I monitor with. Is that so
sketchy that it labels me as someone who could not have bumped against
certain quality limits of his preamps? Perhaps it was something else
that you considered sketchy.

> Too bad you botched your attempted repair, but sooner or later you're
> going to need a new mixer. What are your alternatives? Is a Behrenger
> good enough?

I made full use of the Mackie, and I'm pretty well sold on the brand.
I depend on the 'ALT 3-4' routing of the mute buttons to give me a
pseudo 4 bus mixer. The only thing I could ask for is quieter preamps.

> Would you be able to take advantage of the improved (yes,
> they really are) mic inputs on the Onyx? What mics are you using? What
> are you recording? And what are you doing with those recordings?

My main goal is computer generated compositions using synthesized and
natural or processed recorded sounds. One of my interests is recording
very quiet events, say rubbing my thumb across the bristles of a
toothbrush, and then finding out what I can get from that sound by
altering pitch, duration (sometimes independently) etc... Nice effects
can be made by taking a pitched event, and programmatically mixing 1000,
or 10,000 detuned copies together. The point is, I want to capture
relatively quiet sounds with as little noise as possible. I'm using
a pair of Rode NT-1A's and interface with the computer through a
Midiman Delta 44. The VLZPro amps were usable, and I didn't actually
consider them to be noisy until I bought the Rodes. I had a pair of
low end Marshalls previously and they made enough noise so that the
preamp noise was insignificant. Now I just need to keep squashing
noise wherever I can identify it. The next step is the preamps.


> Depends. If the only thing wrong with your mixer is in the monitor
> section, you can live with that for a long time. But these things
> don't last forever. If you had a problem with one pot, you'll have a
> problem with another pot soon. When do you want it to end? It's like
> when do you buy a new set of tires, and when do you buy a new car?
>

Perhaps, but I've bought the VLZPro when it first came out, and the
pot went bad within 6 months. No other problems have emerged yet.
I was just looking for a little incentive to upgrade. It looks like
when I do it will be to the Onyx, unless you think that I could do
better with another stereo preamp that would be quieter for less money.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Richard Crowley]

"Tobiah" wrote ...
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>>> So, my real question, is whether there is any truth to
>>> Mackie's claim that the VLZ3 preamps are even quieter than
>>> the VLZPro pre's.
>>
>> Measurably, just barely enough to advertise, but given the sketchy
>> description of how you use the mixer I doubt you'd notice the
>> difference.
>
> I find that a strange response. All I have told you is that the mixer
> is sitting on top of the amplifier that I monitor with. Is that so
> sketchy that it labels me as someone who could not have bumped against
> certain quality limits of his preamps? Perhaps it was something else
> that you considered sketchy.

I'd have to agree with Mr. Rivers. I got the impression that
you were using this mixer only as some sort of monitoring
control device. Wasn't clear from the info you provided
that you were even using the mic preamps, or for what?

> My main goal is computer generated compositions using synthesized and
> natural or processed recorded sounds. One of my interests is
> recording
> very quiet events,...

Conventonal consumer (and pro-sumer) level micropones
and preamps are likely not suitable for this kind of specialized
recording. As you have discovered for yourself. There have
been discussions of microphones with low self-noise here in
r.a.p in just the last few weeks.

[Tobiah]

>> The control room knob know has no effect. It is as though
>> it is always cranked full on. Bummer (way better than
>> full off though!). The left VU meter
>> goes out sometimes too, however the signal is still fine.
>
> You lifted the ground pad. Check it with a meter. You will have to
> add a tag wire from the pin to a ground point now.

I'm confused about how this thing works. Here is what it looks like:

/-\
|\_/|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
------------------| |------
|\ | | \
| \ | | \
| \ | | \
| \ | | \
\ \ \_/ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
| \ \
| \ \
| |\ \---------------------------.
\| \ | __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| \ | \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ |
\|___|___|____|____|___|___|_|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |

There are two fat tabs on the side that I thought were just
for physically anchoring the thing. They do solder to the board
though, and they are part of the metal top half of the box.
The six pins map internally to three different tracks on the
resistance board, but the arms that swipe the board are all
made from one piece of metal. I know this through disassembly
of the old pot. I still don't quite get this thing.

So which pin would be the 'ground pad'? I'm also not 100% sure
how to identify a distant ground spot. I agree though, that
it seems as though I just need a piece of wire from a to b
in order to fix the thing. I'm actually not looking forward to
taking the beast apart again though. To get to the top side of
the board requires a great deal of disassembly. It would
be more than worth it though, if I thought that I had a reasonable
chance of success.

Thanks,

Toby

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 14, 12:11 pm, Tobiah > wrote:

> I find that a strange response. All I have told you is that the mixer
> is sitting on top of the amplifier that I monitor with. Is that so
> sketchy that it labels me as someone who could not have bumped against
> certain quality limits of his preamps? Perhaps it was something else
> that you considered sketchy.

So I gave you some good advice and you're worried about how I judged
you? OK, here's the deal:

1. You have a small, older mixer.

2. You said "stereo amplifier that I monitor with." To me this
suggests a "home stereo" amplifier because that's something that you
could reasonably put the mixer on top of. If it was a Hafler or a
Bryston, you probably would have said "my studio monitor amplifier"
but that's just a guess.

3. You didn't say anything about what you use the mixer for other than
as a volume control for your monitors.

4. You get points for attempting a repair even though you failed.
Perhaps Scott's suggestion will help you get it back into operation.
But this gives me no clue that you have good listening skills,
critical projects, or even what you're monitoring on, or in what
environment.

Sometimes people don't fully explain their goals, and I've gotta
admit, yours aren't what we usually see around here. You're recording
the kind of thing that Foley recording engineers do.

> My main goal is computer generated compositions using synthesized and
> natural or processed recorded sounds. One of my interests is recording
> very quiet events, say rubbing my thumb across the bristles of a
> toothbrush, and then finding out what I can get from that sound by
> altering pitch, duration (sometimes independently) etc...

That's really a pretty difficult thing to do well, but the thing is
that you won't get any more gain out of the VLZ3 or Onyx preamps than
what you have now - they're all nominally 60 dB, and they all have
within a few dB of the same quiescent noise floor. You'd probably need
to go to a preamp costing a grand a channel or more in order to
improve the signal-to-noise ratio of your recordings. The Rode NT-1A
is a reasonably quiet mic but in order to get less noise in your
recordings you need more gain without more noise and I (still) don't
think that you'll see a significant improvement with a VLZ3.

But why don't you try? It could be that you won't notice a difference
with just one recording, but if you layer it with itself many times,
the noise will build up and perhaps because there's a small bit less
noise in the original recording, the net effect will be less noise in
the final sound that you're creating. But a lot of that depends on the
processing that you're doing. And since you're doing a lot of
processing anyway, have you tried applying equalization or noise
reduction tools to get the noise level down to where you're happy with
it? Given that the end product is nothing like the sound that went
into the microphone, you don't have to worry about sonic accuracy, you
just need to get what you want.

> I was just looking for a little incentive to upgrade. It looks like
> when I do it will be to the Onyx, unless you think that I could do
> better with another stereo preamp that would be quieter for less money.

It's hard to get anything better than an Onyx for less money than an
Onyx. That's just the way they are. You could get a Millenia Media
HV3C for $2,000, but an RNMP for $500, while many people think it
sounds nicer than a Mackie, isn't as quiet. And given that noise seems
to be your primary criteria, for the money I don't think you can do
better.

[Tobiah]

> I'd have to agree with Mr. Rivers. I got the impression that
> you were using this mixer only as some sort of monitoring
> control device. Wasn't clear from the info you provided
> that you were even using the mic preamps, or for what?

I use it to interface with my computer, for simple, and
multi track recording. I send the main outs to two of the
Delta 44 inputs, and the first two mic sends to the other
two. The 'Alt 3-4' output goes to the monitors. I have
two mics and a stereo keyboard going to the main bus, and
the outputs from two soundcards go into the Alt-3-4 bus.
There is still room for two more mics, and any transient
stereo line level thing that might come along. The 1202
fits my needs beautifully with regard to architecture.

> Conventonal consumer (and pro-sumer) level micropones
> and preamps are likely not suitable for this kind of specialized
> recording. As you have discovered for yourself. There have
> been discussions of microphones with low self-noise here in
> r.a.p in just the last few weeks.

I'm happy with the mics, and really, as things are, I get
pretty decent results. I'll never stop wanting to improve
though, and I believe that quieter preamps are the next step.
After that comes soundproofing the room, but I'll probably
stop short of that.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Tobiah]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On Apr 14, 12:11 pm, Tobiah > wrote:
>
>> I find that a strange response. All I have told you is that the mixer
>> is sitting on top of the amplifier that I monitor with. Is that so
>> sketchy that it labels me as someone who could not have bumped against
>> certain quality limits of his preamps? Perhaps it was something else
>> that you considered sketchy.
>
> So I gave you some good advice and you're worried about how I judged
> you?

I probably should have lead with appreciation for the help. I guess
that "given the sketchy description of how you use the mixer I doubt
you'd notice the difference" made me feel judged, sure. It would be
like a waiter saying, "Don't order that wine sir, your palate is
simply not sophisticated enough to appreciate it" just because I
showed up in a tee shirt. I suppose that my setup would be entirely
'sketchy' from your point of view, but my financial constraints do not
limit my ear. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond. This
is the latest of many times that you have yielded helpful information to me.

>
> 1. You have a small, older mixer.
>
> 2. You said "stereo amplifier that I monitor with." To me this
> suggests a "home stereo" amplifier.

Yeah, everything else is decent home stereo gear. How sketchy :)


> Sometimes people don't fully explain their goals, and I've gotta
> admit, yours aren't what we usually see around here. You're recording
> the kind of thing that Foley recording engineers do.

Oh right, is there a list for that sort of thing specifically?

> That's really a pretty difficult thing to do well, but the thing is
> that you won't get any more gain out of the VLZ3 or Onyx preamps than
> what you have now - they're all nominally 60 dB, and they all have
> within a few dB of the same quiescent noise floor. You'd probably need
> to go to a preamp costing a grand a channel or more in order to
> improve the signal-to-noise ratio of your recordings.

I don't usually need more than the 60dB, it's really the noise at
that gain level that becomes a problem. If the Onyx preamps aren't
appreciably quieter, I guess I'll just sit tight until I get a chance
to try something in the next class.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[hank alrich]

Tobiah > wrote:

> Now I just need to keep squashing
> noise wherever I can identify it. The next step is the preamps.

www.gordonaudio.com/

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> 4. You get points for attempting a repair even though you failed.
> Perhaps Scott's suggestion will help you get it back into operation.
> But this gives me no clue that you have good listening skills,
> critical projects, or even what you're monitoring on, or in what
> environment.

But if the pot went bad within six months of purchase and it was a new
mixer, Mackie would have fixed it.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Tobiah]

> But if the pot went bad within six months of purchase and it was a new
> mixer, Mackie would have fixed it.
>
You might be right. I'm not really too sure about the
time frame. It was quite a number of years ago. I'm
not sure whether it was under warranty at the time. I
remember calling up though, and the tech just said,
"Oh, I'll send that part right out to you". Seemed
simple enough. I didn't actually bother trying to
replace the part until now. A scratchy monitor level
knob really isn't a problem. It wasn't so bad that
the signal would come in and out after my fingers
left the knob.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:11:23 -0700, Tobiah > wrote:

>Perhaps, but I've bought the VLZPro when it first came out, and the
>pot went bad within 6 months.

Wasn't that a warranty job then?

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 14, 1:17 pm, Tobiah > wrote:

> I probably should have lead with appreciation for the help.

No need to genuflect, just send money. <g>
> > the kind of thing that Foley recording engineers do.
> Oh right, is there a list for that sort of thing specifically?

Oh, there's a mailing list or newsgroup for about everything, I guess,
but basically they work in the film industry, so perhaps one of the
film production newsgroups would be the place to start.

> I don't usually need more than the 60dB, it's really the noise at
> that gain level that becomes a problem.

OK, here are some actual measurements that I made just a minute ago:

Microphone simulated with a 150 ohm resistor
Gain at maximum
Channel fader at Unity position
Master fader at Unity position

Noise at Main Output - 1402 VLZ Pro: -67 dBu
Noise at Main Output - Onyx 1220: -69 sBu

Noise at Preamp Output - 1402 VLZ Pro: -69 dBu
Noise at Preamp Output - Onyx 1220: -70 dBu

So the Onyx is at best 2 dB quieter, but given that the maximum output
before clipping at the main output is 2 dB higher on the VLZ Pro than
on the Onyx, the broadband (unweighted) noise performance of the two
is essentially the same.

I (and probably anyone else here with experience with both) will tell
you that as a mixer, the Onyx sounds better than the VLZ Pro, and as a
mic preamp, with certain microphones (for example, an SM57) the Onyx
sounds better. I suspect that as a preamp for your Rode mic they'd
sound pretty much the same.

[Tobiah]

> Noise at Main Output - 1402 VLZ Pro: -67 dBu
> Noise at Main Output - Onyx 1220: -69 sBu
>
> Noise at Preamp Output - 1402 VLZ Pro: -69 dBu
> Noise at Preamp Output - Onyx 1220: -70 dBu
>
> So the Onyx is at best 2 dB quieter, but given that the maximum output
> before clipping at the main output is 2 dB higher on the VLZ Pro than
> on the Onyx, the broadband (unweighted) noise performance of the two
> is essentially the same.
>
> I (and probably anyone else here with experience with both) will tell
> you that as a mixer, the Onyx sounds better than the VLZ Pro, and as a
> mic preamp, with certain microphones (for example, an SM57) the Onyx
> sounds better. I suspect that as a preamp for your Rode mic they'd
> sound pretty much the same.
>

Wow, that's valuable information. Thanks for taking the time.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Tobiah]

> Measurably, just barely enough to advertise, but given the sketchy
> description of how you use the mixer I doubt you'd notice the
> difference.

I read this again, and realized that I had taken it in a
way other than how you had meant it. When I read what you
wrote above, my crippled brain digested something like:

"Given the sketchy way that you use the mixer"

Where 'sketchy' would mean poorly thought out, or put
into use with little foresight, or on the fringe, in
a way that is almost not proper.

What I read the second time, was you evaluating my
perception of the preamps, while admitting that the
judgement was based only on the 'sketchy' description
(which it was) that I had provided as to how I was
using the preamps.

Just wanted to straighten that out. Sorry for being
defensive.

As always, genuine *without* genuflect.

Tobiah



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 14, 6:48 pm, Tobiah > wrote:

> What I read the second time, was you evaluating my
> perception of the preamps, while admitting that the
> judgement was based only on the 'sketchy' description
> (which it was) that I had provided as to how I was
> using the preamps.

Yup. All too often people ask a question that has more than one
answer, and those answers could go in different directions depending
on what the details really were.

[Jim Gilliland]

Tobiah wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 12:11 pm, Tobiah > wrote:
>>
>>> I find that a strange response. All I have told you is that the mixer
>>> is sitting on top of the amplifier that I monitor with. Is that so
>>> sketchy that it labels me as someone who could not have bumped against
>>> certain quality limits of his preamps? Perhaps it was something else
>>> that you considered sketchy.
>>
>> So I gave you some good advice and you're worried about how I judged
>> you?
>
> I probably should have lead with appreciation for the help. I guess
> that "given the sketchy description of how you use the mixer I doubt
> you'd notice the difference" made me feel judged, sure. It would be
> like a waiter saying, "Don't order that wine sir, your palate is
> simply not sophisticated enough to appreciate it" just because I
> showed up in a tee shirt. I suppose that my setup would be entirely
> 'sketchy' from your point of view, but my financial constraints do not
> limit my ear. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond.

I wonder if the problem here is just a misunderstanding of the word "sketchy".
There is no judgement in that word - it simply means "limited in information".
In other words, you didn't provide enough detail to let Mike completely
understand what you were doing. He wasn't judging you.

[Tobiah]

> I wonder if the problem here is just a misunderstanding of the word
> "sketchy".

I figured that out last night. He was applying the word to
the description of how I use the mixer, whereas I had taken
it to be applied to the way I use it.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com