Jump to content

Mackie 1202 vs 1604.


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I do think that Mackie would've given the full works on the 1604VLZ but with-held some of it on the smaller 1202 VLZ. After all...the 1202 VLZ is the entry level, right?.

 

I wonder how true this is?. Anyone knows?.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

The 1604 does have some more bells and whistles...(extra aux bussxes, sub groups, etc). But from a fidelity perspective, I believe you'll get a similar result...with less routing options.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

There is absolutely no difference in tonal quality, craftsmanship or component parts between the two mixers.

 

Neither is entry level but rather simply offers a choice of the number of channels available for a particular application.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

 

Originally posted by BillESC

There is absolutely no difference in tonal quality, craftsmanship or component parts between the two mixers.


Neither is entry level but rather simply offers a choice of the number of channels available for a particular application.

 

 

Really?. I wished I could A-B both and hear for myself...but since you're confident of that, I'll buy that for now. Thanks...and I hope that you're right on that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • CMS Author

 

Originally posted by stunningbabe



Really?. I wished I could A-B both and hear for myself...but since you're confident of that, I'll buy that for now. Thanks...and I hope that you're right on that one.

 

 

Is the intended use studio recording or live sound? These mixers are primarily for recording and for the price are limited in usefullness for live audio. An A&H Mizwizard would be a much better choice for live use, for the same price as the 1604.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

 

Originally posted by Craigv



Is the intended use studio recording or live sound? These mixers are primarily for recording and for the price are limited in usefullness for live audio. An A&H Mizwizard would be a much better choice for live use, for the same price as the 1604.

 

 

It's intended to use for live sound. The 1202 has just enough channels for my application.I'm running a Keyboard (mono) and my Laptop (mono) plus 4 balanced Mics.

 

I'm just curious whether the 1202 suffers from a lesser sound quality when compared to the 1604.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

 

Originally posted by stunningbabe



It's intended to use for live sound. The 1202 has just enough channels for my application.I'm running a Keyboard (mono) and my Laptop (mono) plus 4 balanced Mics.


I'm just curious whether the 1202 suffers from a lesser sound quality when compared to the 1604.

 

 

IMHO you should never buy a mixer with "just enough" channels for what you're doing because in very short order you'll have "not enough".

 

Inputs are like potato chips...you start off with a handful thinking that you'll be satisfied with that amount. 10 minutes later you're holding an empty bag.

 

Just my $0.02 on the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

 

Originally posted by Old Steve



IMHO you should never buy a mixer with "just enough" channels for what you're doing because in very short order you'll have "not enough".


Inputs are like potato chips...you start off with a handful thinking that you'll be satisfied with that amount. 10 minutes later you're holding an empty bag.


Just my $0.02 on the subject.

 

 

agreed. good point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

 

Originally posted by Craigv

With only two pre-fader aux's, your monitor setup may become another empty bag of chips before your belly's full too. You're doing live sound. Get a mixer intended for live sound.

 

 

My set up is only for small venues...less than 100 people in an enclosed area...like those typical small pubs. I only require 2 stage monitors.

 

Wont that be enough with the 1202?. For bigger shows I hire rental companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • CMS Author

 

Originally posted by stunningbabe



My set up is only for small venues...less than 100 people in an enclosed area...like those typical small pubs. I only require 2 stage monitors.


Wont that be enough with the 1202?. For bigger shows I hire rental companies.

 

 

Two mixes might be enough but you won't get that with the 1202. The 1202 has only two aux's and aux-2 is fixed post-fader. That's one monitor mix and one efx mix, or two efx mixes. And this board only has 4 mic inputs, fixed 3-band EQ, and rotary faders. It's really not a good live sound mixer. No matter how badly you may want it to be, it wasn't designed for this use. It lacks features you need, and provides others you won't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

 

Originally posted by Craigv



Two mixes might be enough but you won't get that with the 1202. The 1202 has only two aux's and aux-2 is fixed post-fader. That's one monitor mix and one efx mix, or two efx mixes. And this board only has 4 mic inputs, fixed 3-band EQ, and rotary faders. It's really not a good live sound mixer. No matter how badly you may want it to be, it wasn't designed for this use. It lacks features you need, and provides others you won't.

 

 

Yes, you are right again. Rotary faders are not what I want indeed. I saw that 1202 is compact and pretty easy to carry it around...thats why I thought about it.

 

But 1202 still beats buying a Behringer no matter how many extra features the latter has, right?.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • CMS Author

 

Originally posted by stunningbabe



Yes, you are right again. Rotary faders are not what I want indeed. I saw that 1202 is compact and pretty easy to carry it around...thats why I thought about it.


But 1202 still beats buying a Behringer no matter how many extra features the latter has, right?.

 

 

Yes. There are many good choices available. Yamaha, Peavey, Allen & Heath, Crest, Soundcraft, etc. all have compact-format live sound mixers. A Mixwiz3 12:2 would be a pretty good place to start looking. Costs less than a Mackie 1604. There are probably some Peavey RQ2310's left for a lot less.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

Mackie 1402 would be the next step up. Also used 1604's are really cheap especially since there are so many out there. I've had a few over the years and my latest one has been just sitting in a case for over a year now.

 

p

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

I just replaced my Mackie 1604VLZ Pro with an Allen & Heath MixWizard3 16:2. I ha epreviously ouwned the MAckie 1202 and 1402 VLZ (not Pro's, though). I could never tell the difference in sound quality between any of the Mackie's, all of which I thought were excellent. I tried the "just enough channel" approach and failed - twice. Thus, the 1604.

 

I went to the A & H due to some comments on this board about there being less headroom on Mackie mixers vs. A&H mixers before distortion occurs. If you properly set gain according to Mackie's method, you should have no problem. Again, no problem.

 

Two things I do not like as much about the A&H compared to the Mackie. 1. In my rack, the A&H jacks must face downward, causing me to purchase a small snake just to make connections easier to accomplish. The Mackie needs 10U, the A&H 11U of space. 2. The Mackie 1604 VLZ (or VLZ Pro) is a 4-bus mixer, while the A&H has only 2 buses. I didn't even know what that meant until I tried to create 3 submixes on the A&H, such as I had on the MAckie 1604. (Vocals, keys, guitars). No can do. But, the A&H has advantages, too.

 

So, bottom line. The Mackies sound fantastic. No difference besides size among them, as long as the product line is the same (VLZ Pro or VLZ, etc. Buy one with at least a few extra inputs. You'll use them eventually, and daisy-chaining mixers is not fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • CMS Author

 

Originally posted by toxrtp

I just replaced my Mackie 1604VLZ Pro with an Allen & Heath MixWizard3 16:2. I ha epreviously ouwned the MAckie 1202 and 1402 VLZ (not Pro's, though). I could never tell the difference in sound quality between any of the Mackie's, all of which I thought were excellent. I tried the "just enough channel" approach and failed - twice. Thus, the 1604.


I went to the A & H due to some comments on this board about there being less headroom on Mackie mixers vs. A&H mixers before distortion occurs. If you properly set gain according to Mackie's method, you should have no problem. Again, no problem.


Two things I do not like as much about the A&H compared to the Mackie. 1. In my rack, the A&H jacks must face downward, causing me to purchase a small snake just to make connections easier to accomplish. The Mackie needs 10U, the A&H 11U of space. 2. The Mackie 1604 VLZ (or VLZ Pro) is a 4-bus mixer, while the A&H has only 2 buses. I didn't even know what that meant until I tried to create 3 submixes on the A&H, such as I had on the MAckie 1604. (Vocals, keys, guitars). No can do. But, the A&H has advantages, too.


So, bottom line. The Mackies sound fantastic. No difference besides size among them, as long as the product line is the same (VLZ Pro or VLZ, etc. Buy one with at least a few extra inputs. You'll use them eventually, and daisy-chaining mixers is not fun.

 

 

How did you handle monitors and effects with the Mackie?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

I have a Mackie 1604vlz and I use Aux 1 and Aux 2 for two pre-fader Monitor sends; Aux 3 for Reverb; Aux 4 for dedicated delay; Aux 5 is a dedicated snare reverb. The 1604 has a shift key that can change aux 3/4 to Aux 5/6....it gives me two more effects channels kinda-sorta (as long as I don't need the effects on 3&4 on that channel too).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

OK, you force me to reveal my ingorance, at least with respect to terms. Feed for FX was sent out of Aux 3 (vocals only) to an FX processor (TC M300) and then back to the Mackie 1604 via a channel strip. Stage monitors were fed via Aux Send 1. FOH were sent via Main Outs. Am I making sense?

 

Now, with the Allen & Heath, I use onboard effects. That is another advantage. Though they're not as sophisticated as the M300, the onboard FX provide all I need and then some.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • CMS Author

This all illustrates what I've been trying to tell the original poster. The Mackie's in question are set up for recording, not live sound. Yes, of course you can use them for either, but again, you usually will see a recording mixer set up with more post-fader auxilaries and only one or two pre-fader aux's. This is not what you would typically want for a live sound mixer. The multiple mix outs, control room feeds, etc. are all recording features and not so very useful for live sound (well, they're fine to have *after* a mixer has all the other live-sound bases covered).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

CraigV, I think you're correct. Both the A&H MW3 and the Mackies are probably overkill for most live performance needs. In fact, for my "B" rig, I purchased a small Samson mixer ($125, w/six mic inputs plus 6 stereo inputs) and its sound is fine, too. Sure, the knobs and controls don't have the same quality feel, and there's not as much flexibility with it but, for example, we ran a show with six vocalists, two instruments and two mixes out, and you'dve never known it was a $125 mixer. (Of course, that didn't keep me from spending $900 on the MixWizard3 16:2, but that's my emotional issue.........)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • CMS Author

 

Originally posted by toxrtp

CraigV, I think you're correct. Both the A&H MW3 and the Mackies are probably overkill for most live performance needs. In fact, for my "B" rig, I purchased a small Samson mixer ($125, w/six mic inputs plus 6 stereo inputs) and its sound is fine, too. Sure, the knobs and controls don't have the same quality feel, and there's not as much flexibility with it but, for example, we ran a show with six vocalists, two instruments and two mixes out, and you'dve never known it was a $125 mixer. (Of course, that didn't keep me from spending $900 on the MixWizard3 16:2, but that's my emotional issue.........)

 

 

I don't think the Mackie in question are overkill; they're inadequate by nature of their design. It's analogous to using a bus where you really need a 20' straight truck with liftgate.

 

The Mixwiz3 12:2 would probably be perfect for her needs. Enough channels, enough monitor sends, enough efx sends, and priced less than the Mackie 1604.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...