What is a Great Small Mixer with Best Mic Pres and Phantom Power

[BigMac5]

whats wrong?

 

I own macky gear.

[Bobby1Note]

I would not hesitate to suggest that most audiophiles are educated beyond their own intelligence and believe they, and only they, can hera things that do not exist when subject to scientific testing such as double-blind. It's the perceived exclusivity to club of rarified air of cork sniffing snobs that takes away all senses of rationality. In the recording world, I am suggesting that many are buying this crap because they have clients that read about how you can't make a good record (CD etc.) without model XYZ preamp or whatever. If the studio wants to survive or prosper, they have to play the game. It's for the most part (not completely) a stupid, senseless game that has no winners. Ironicly, the game is also played in the pro audio live sound world too. And just aboout every world where somebody feels the need to be better than somebody else and this is more easily accomplished by buying something rather than working hard at it. Once you get into a certain level of gear, any improvements beyond that are so small as to be unjustifyable to 99.9% of the users. Even the pro users. Where that point is is up to discussion, but certainly brand and model envy is alive and well.

 

 

Andy, I gotta agree almost 99% with that assessment, especially paragraph 1. I've met those guys too,,, plenty of them. In fairness though, I've also met some pretty savvy dudes who have a knack for spotting a winner, and sometimes, at bargain prices (relatively speaking). For these guys, it's purely performance that counts, They could care less about brand-name or price, or what the next guy thinks of their selection. Those guys aren't out to impress anybody but themselves..

 

I still have to come back to proper A/B testing though. The differences are not simply a matter of opinion. The differences can be, and often are, VERY obvious. Go listen to a pair of Klein & Hummel 0 300 or 0 410 studio monitors for example, and tell me you aren't impressed. They're wonderful speakers.

[Coaster]

I own macky gear.

 

 

so do i.

 

what do you own? i have an old 1604vlz that just got taken apart all the way, cleaned and put back together AGAIN:mad: now it works just fine. i was getting all kinds of odd stupid behaviour, just like every year. seems to last about a year and then goes crazy. i'm so sick of this mixer. its gonna be skeet in short order.

 

i had a 1402vlz, sold it.

 

(2) hr824's, no problems (yet)

 

at my former job they had tons of mackie stuff and not one thing worked right, and those horrible powered 15's fake eon gray plastic tub of muck speakers really turned my opinion of mackie to even less than it was before.

 

i gave away every behringer component i had a few years ago. it actually was more reliable than the mackie stuff. at some point i will not have any mackie equipment, i will just shoot it or drive my truck over it.

[philw44]

In the recording world, I am suggesting that many are buying this crap because they have clients that read about how you can't make a good record (CD etc.) without model XYZ preamp or whatever. If the studio wants to survive or prosper, they have to play the game. It's for the most part (not completely) a stupid, senseless game that has no winners.

 

 

Well, I agree that people put too much emphasis on gear to make a good record/recording (when other things may make a greater difference...)

 

But.. Some of those top-end preamps are pretty special. I remember a session recording a vocalist through a Neumann U87. We flipped between the desk pre (A+H) and a Neve..It just came alive with the Neve.

[agedhorse]

I still have to come back to proper A/B testing though. The differences are not simply a matter of opinion. The differences can be, and often are, VERY obvious. Go listen to a pair of Klein & Hummel 0 300 or 0 410 studio monitors for example, and tell me you aren't impressed. They're wonderful speakers.

 

 

Sure and with double blind testing I do think most listeners could tell a difference BUT agreeing which is best will be another complete crapshoot in many (not all) cases.

 

My gripe is with items that are essentially identical (inside) where folks rave about one but in double-blind testing there is ZERO statictical difference in picks. There is (often) not all that much difference between many products once you get to high quality products and when folks make these bold statements that are not backed up by double-blind testing, I call bull{censored}.

 

I have participated in double-blind testing and I will tell you that it exposes all kinds of crapola... kind of seperates the men from the boys and the solid engineering from the marketing bull{censored}.

[modulusman]

so do i. what do you own? i have an old 1604vlz that just got taken apart all the way, cleaned and put back together AGAIN:mad: now it works just fine. i was getting all kinds of odd stupid behaviour, just like every year. seems to last about a year and then goes crazy. i'm so sick of this mixer. its gonna be skeet in short order. i had a 1402vlz, sold it. (2) hr824's, no problems (yet) at my former job they had tons of mackie stuff and not one thing worked right, and those horrible powered 15's fake eon gray plastic tub of muck speakers really turned my opinion of mackie to even less than it was before. i gave away every behringer component i had a few years ago. it actually was more reliable than the mackie stuff. at some point i will not have any mackie equipment, i will just shoot it or drive my truck over it.

 

 

I have owned 5 mackie boards, three 450s a 1500 and 1501 sub. I had a $35.00 repair on one mixer other than that it all worked fine. the only Mackie product I still own is an Onyx 1640 that I have had for about 5 years.

[agedhorse]

I have owned 5 mackie boards, three 450s a 1500 and 1501 sub. I had a $35.00 repair on one mixer other than that it all worked fine. the only Mackie product I still own is an Onyx 1640 that I have had for about 5 years.

Go out and buy a lottery ticket real fast. Your luck may not hold our much longer.

[BigMac5]

so do i. what do you own? i have an old 1604vlz that just got taken apart all the way, cleaned and put back together AGAIN:mad: now it works just fine. i was getting all kinds of odd stupid behaviour, just like every year. seems to last about a year and then goes crazy. i'm so sick of this mixer. its gonna be skeet in short order. i had a 1402vlz, sold it. (2) hr824's, no problems (yet) at my former job they had tons of mackie stuff and not one thing worked right, and those horrible powered 15's fake eon gray plastic tub of muck speakers really turned my opinion of mackie to even less than it was before. i gave away every behringer component i had a few years ago. it actually was more reliable than the mackie stuff. at some point i will not have any mackie equipment, i will just shoot it or drive my truck over it.

 

 

1604 VLZ Mixer, SRM450's, SA1530z's. Only problem I ever had is with one SA1530z, broke twice and blown HF driver.

[6Imzadi]

Is Mackie sill a viable company? I have heard nothing about them for quite some time now. Except not to buy from them. I sold my 2404 mixer, which was made in the US. I almost bought the TT24 before I was scared out of it.

[Bobby1Note]

Dale, They certainly have a LOT of gear in the marketplace, from what I can tell. I suspect there are a helluva lot of kids reading the musician magazines, who think that Mackie is the "creme-de-la-creme".

I was shopping today, and the live-sound section of the store was loaded with Mackie gear, in very eye-catching packages.

It would be interesting to see what percentage of their revenues are directed to product support (spare parts/service)

[Bobby1Note]

OK, I just did a bit of research into the li'l Peavey6 that was mentioned earlier. I was troubled about the possibility that I could have steered the OP away from what some here described as "essentially the same mixer, for $80. less.

Well, I'll sleep easy tonight.

Turns out the SoundCraft 124FX has 8 channels (4 mono/4 stereo) The Peavey is 4 mono/ 2 stereo)

The SoundCrafts' stereo inputs are balanced,,,, not on the Peavey. Only the mic/line inputs are balanced. In fact, all of the 124FX's i/o is balanced, with the exception of the RCA inputs (CD player/MP3, etc)

The 124 FX has built-in FX, w/tap and Pink Noise(more than 100 programs),,, the Peavey none. (external FX send only)


The 124FX has 100Hz hi-pass filters on each mono channel, the Peavey has a single-button 80Hz hi-pass filter. (odd) Does this mean it's all or nothing on all mic/line inputs? Hmmm.

The SoundCraft 124 FX has switchable padded inputs on all stereo channels,(+4/-10dBv)



I'm off to bed.

[SoundMan]

"Turns out the SoundCraft 124FX has 8 channels (4 mono/4 stereo) The Peavey is 4 mono/ 2 stereo)"

We could compare the PV8, for $139. It has more channels.

"The SoundCrafts' stereo inputs are balanced,,,, not on the Peavey. Only the mic/line inputs are balanced. In fact, all of the 124FX's i/o is balanced, with the exception of the RCA inputs (CD player/MP3, etc)"

Yes, the Peavey's are all balanced.

You're right, no FX, but if you want to upgrade to the PV10, it does.

Yeah, the high pass is all or nothing, a compromise we made to keep the price low.

My preamps don't need no stinkin' pads. :poke:

I probably wouldn't have even responded, except to correct the balanced i/o statement. Choose the mixer that best suites your needs and that you're happy with.

[agedhorse]

Comparing like products to like products helps keep things more reasonable.

Hey Jim, aren't your preamps just as British as the Brit's?

[Bobby1Note]

"Turns out the SoundCraft 124FX has 8 channels (4 mono/4 stereo) The Peavey is 4 mono/ 2 stereo)" We could compare the PV8, for $139. It has more channels. "The SoundCrafts' stereo inputs are balanced,,,, not on the Peavey. Only the mic/line inputs are balanced. In fact, all of the 124FX's i/o is balanced, with the exception of the RCA inputs (CD player/MP3, etc)" Yes, the Peavey's are all balanced. You're right, no FX, but if you want to upgrade to the PV10, it does. Yeah, the high pass is all or nothing, a compromise we made to keep the price low. My preamps don't need no stinkin' pads. :poke: I probably wouldn't have even responded, except to correct the balanced i/o statement. Choose the mixer that best suites your needs and that you're happy with.

 

 

So Jim,

 

That brings us to $139, for the same number of inputs, and still no FX, and no individual channel HP filter. Kinda starts to even out I'd say, wouldn't you?

 

BTW, your websites' literature only specifies balanced inputs on the Mono/XLR channels. Check it out.

 

Edit; OK, I just looked at the owners manual for the PV 6, and the stereo inputs ARE balanced as far as I can see.

[SoundMan]

"Edit; OK, I just looked at the owners manual for the PV 6, and the stereo inputs ARE balanced as far as I can see."

You didn't trust the guy that designed it?


What's the warranty for the Soundcraft? Ours is 5 years.

Where's the monitor bus on the SC? We have one.

Where's the EQ on the stereo line inputs? We have 3 band EQ on each.

Do they have summing bus clipping indicators? We do. They are not labeled as such, but they are there, trust me.

Where are the inserts on the SC? We have 4 channels with inserts.

I don't see the gain pad switches you referred to earlier.

We have better metering, more resolution in the array.

I'll concede the effects, because that's obvious. But these are very different mixers.

[Bobby1Note]

Here's the 124 FX Jim.

http://www.soundcraft.com/products/product.aspx?pid=173

You said you have EQ on the stereo inputs???

http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Peavey-PV6-Mixer?sku=631366

[BeeTL]

I own the PV10USB.

I am very happy with it.

[agedhorse]

Here's the 124 FX Jim. http://www.soundcraft.com/products/product.aspx?pid=173 You said you have EQ on the stereo inputs??? http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/product/Peavey-PV6-Mixer?sku=631366

 

 

The PV 8 has stereo input eq. We were discussing a comparison of more like products. The only thing the Peavey is missing compared w/ the 124FX is the effects. It does have other useful features that the 124FX is missing though. Depends on what it more important in each product's feature set IMO.

[Bobby1Note]

We were discussing a comparison of more like products.

 

 

Aha, got it.

 

Let's wind this thing back however. We were originally talking about the Peavey PV 6 (not the PV 8 or PV 10) vs the Soundcraft 124 FX. It was said that the Peavey PV 6 was "essentially the same mixer" as the Soundcraft 124 FX for $80. less, and quite a few folks had comments about that. It's those comments I was addressing. The PV 6 most definitely is not "essentially the same mixer" for $80. less. We're agreed on that point.

[SoundMan]

Yeah, I jumped ahead to the PV8 vs. argument. It's all good, the OP just needs to look at each, weigh his options and pick the one that better suits his needs.

It's his money after all.

[Bobby1Note]

Agreed

BTW, and FWIW, after taking a closer look, I kinda like your small mixers too.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Aha, got it. Let's wind this thing back however. We were originally talking about the Peavey PV 6 (not the PV 8 or PV 10) vs the Soundcraft 124 FX. It was said that the Peavey PV 6 was "essentially the same mixer" as the Soundcraft 124 FX for $80. less, and quite a few folks had comments about that. It's those comments I was addressing. The PV 6 most definitely is not "essentially the same mixer" for $80. less. We're agreed on that point.

 

 

Indeed, let's wind this back, to post #1:

 

"I'd like to use a small mixer to combine my guitar mics to go into a single channel on the board.

 

Which mixer would you recommend that has 4 channels and phantom power but that will not kill a wallet?"

 

That's all he asked for. 4 channels and phantom power. There's no need for efx, inserts, 100mm faders, etc. It's just a submixer for a couple of guitar cabinet mics. In the context of what he'll be using, the two mixers are the same.

[Bobby1Note]

Good point about use as a submixer Craig.

I made my SoundCraft recommendation based solely as an ultra-compact stand-alone mixer, and based on my very positive experience with the SoundCraft EFX-8. I too had bought the EFX-8 for use as a sub-mixer for my MixWiz, just in case I ever found myself short of inputs on my MixWiz. As it turns out though, I now use it routinely for all my acoustic-guitar gigs, and I've been very happy with it's performance and features.

I've toyed with the idea of buying the 124 FX, simply because I can fit it in the accessories pocket of my AER Compact 60/2's shoulder-bag. Less gear to lug around for those small gigs/jams/practices. Mind you, I presently carry the EFX-8 in a Gator G-Mix 15"x15" shoulder-bag, so for me, that's not a big deal either.

[Craig Vecchione]

horses for courses:thu: