Jump to content

Mackie 1604-VLZ3 vs. Allen & Heath MixWizard3 16:2


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Hello,

 

I am thinking of buying a new mixer and have finalized my options to these two:

 

Mackie 1604-VLZ3 vs. Allen & Heath MixWizard3 16:2

 

Could anyone with experience give me some advice. The extra money is not an issue. We play Latin, Jazz and World Music.

 

What about rackmounting? Which one has better access? I saw the picture of the Mixwizard's rear and looks a bit odd. But I do not.

 

What about quality of sound. I found a review that says:

 

"I have gone through Midas Venice (bland, opaque, in your face), Onyx (grainy, onfucused, vintage?), VLZ (flat. not bad), Yamaha( shrill), and now A&H. A&H is by far the best mixer for live sound, although the Onyx is also a pretty nice board...There is nothing better in this price range the the MixWiz3."

 

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MixWizard316/reviews/#anchor

 

Your input is greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's quite an extreme characterization for a group of boards that are generally quite similar if design and construction. In fact your whole post sounds extreme enough that maybe you are missing something awfully important in your testing of mixers IMO.

 

From experience with all of those boards, I wouldn't characterize the sound of any of them to be any more than pretty subtle differences. Reliability issues that I have delt with on Mackie products that I had sold to my customers would steer me clear of that brand.

 

You might rethink why the boards all sounded so dramaticlly different and see if maybe there was something else you were doing (eq maybe) that accounts for the extreme differences that I'll bet nobody else here has experienced either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Mackie supposedly has reliability issues. I own an older 1402VLZ and it does have some issues with a noisy bus and volume drops.

 

A&H does appear to be better quality-wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Mackie 1604-VLZ3 vs. Allen & Heath MixWizard3 16:2

I'm tempted to just go:

:eek::lol::eek::lol:

but in case you are serious I'll say I own a 1604 because I'm a cheap bastard and perhaps a bit stoopid. If that description fits you definitely go for the 1604 :facepalm: !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hi,

 

Thanks for the info, I would just like to clarify that I have not tested either one. The paragraph about the difference in sounds are from another guy who did a review, and wanted more opinions on them.

 

Thanks,

 

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah, I think I would pick the Mix Wiz out of those. I would also consider Soundcraft, but I am not sure they have something in that size with 16 mic inputs, although I do know the EPM 12 has 12. The EPM boards aren't bad little boards at all. Of the two you listed though I would pick the Allen and Heath. I would also say that Agedhorse is probably right about the reviewer's opinions being a good bit off base. I (like him) would doubt that if all those consoles were set flat that you would hear that much difference between them. And the Venice is usually a pretty well liked board, so I don't know where that reviewer got his information from on that.... Do you not have a local dealer for either of the two brands where you can go check them out in person before you buy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

+ 1 on the MixWiz.

 

6 Auxes, mono XLR main out and dedicated fader, the ability to do a stereo mix but also the ability to turn the L and R faders into subgroups, inserts on everything including the L and R, direct outs, the feature list goes on. A&H 16:2 is a great board.

 

We're a 6 or 7 member band depending on the night and we're using 5 of the Auxes as individual monitor mixes with powered monitors. Aux 1 goes into channel 16 to create a subgroup of the backing vocals. We aren't using the onboard fx but what little I've heard isn't bad. From there, we create a L subgroup with all vocals and a R subgroup with all instruments. That is all summed in the mono (M) output. Meets all our mixing needs and then some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

the effects are actually fine but not overly complex. example: i use the plate reverb on drums instead of an outboard effects and it is fine but not adjustable. i still use outboard effects on the vocals. effects are not noisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's not even a contest. MixWiz3.

 

I have a 1604 also..... it's a backup in the extreme circumstance that the MixWiz gets hit by a nuclear blast.... and even in that case, it probably would still be functional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Can anyone comment on the effects the board has? Does it create noise like in many of the other board with effects?

 

 

Plenty quiet and good enough for 99% of the applications you are likely to encounter.

 

They are adjustable w/ a PC control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


"I have gone through Midas Venice (bland, opaque, in your face),


http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MixWizard316/reviews/#anchor


 

That statement is offending, The Midas Venice is an amazing console, still the its a tough choice between a vice and a GL console

 

Anyways

 

There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE fault with the 1604, its a decent mixer for the price yes but

 

NO XLR OUTPUTS

 

nuff said, youd think with the "new and improved" VLZ3 they would have figured that out

:facepalm:

get a Mixwizard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That statement is offending, The Midas Venice is an amazing console, still the its a tough choice between a vice and a GL console


Anyways


There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE fault with the 1604, its a decent mixer for the price yes but


NO XLR OUTPUTS


nuff said, youd think with the "new and improved" VLZ3 they would have figured that out

:facepalm:
get a Mixwizard

 

 

at over double the price its not that tough a choice, that and the short faders on the venice. very nice board though, very easy to mix on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, there's not any room for XLR outs, so TRS is ok for anybody who uses input/output panels or pre-wires the rack to the processing below in a mixer-rack. It's not the end of the world compared with the reliability problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

 

Well, there's not any room for XLR outs, so TRS is ok for anybody who uses input/output panels or pre-wires the rack to the processing below in a mixer-rack. It's not the end of the world compared with the reliability problems.

 

 

Hi Agedhorse - I have read that the reliability problems were solved by changing something in the manufacturing ... location?

 

Have you heard anything about that?

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I disagree with all of the opinions, but like assholes, everybody has one.

Yes and most of them stink!:)

 

+1 on the Mixwiz for much better routing, real aux sends, built in effects, better reliability and much better eq (dual sweeps).

 

Oh...I have a Mackie 1604 vlz with an intermittent ribbon cable problem...it stays in the practice studio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Does the Peavey 16FX have any place in this discussion? Seems like the specs are similar to those mentioned...

 

I've been seriously considering it over the MixWiz based on the lower price and the built-in output processing (Feedback Ferret, limiter, etc)

 

I've ruled out lots of other boards at this price point because of too few aux sends, but the Peavey has 6...

 

Anyone know reasons not to consider this board?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...