Mackie 1202 VLZ vs. VLZ Pro - What's the difference?
D. Bruce Moore
I know that the original 1202 and the 1202 VLZ have very different pre-amps,
but what about the VLZ -> VLZ Pro?
Trevor de Clercq
yesterday or something that was pretty much exactly the same? Or haven't you
seen the bazillion Mackie ads that tout the much-improved pre-amps in their VLZ
Pro?
Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq
D. Bruce Moore
reply from someone saying that the pre-amps improved significantly from 1202
to the 1202 VLZ, but that he didn't know of a difference between the VLZ and
the VLZ Pro.
I have read the Mackie ads, and the pre-amps that they refer to may ALSO be
in the VLZ only version.
This is what I am trying to determine. Maybe the "Analogeezer" answered
that question, but his reply did not get onto my NewsServer.
Bruce
Trevor de Clercq <tdec...@fcstrategy.com> wrote in message
news:3A78510C...@fcstrategy.com...
Brad Shermock
says...
> I do not see a post from anyone by the name of "Analogeezer". I did
have a
> reply from someone saying that the pre-amps improved significantly from
1202
> to the 1202 VLZ, but that he didn't know of a difference between the
VLZ and
> the VLZ Pro.
> I have read the Mackie ads, and the pre-amps that they refer to may
ALSO be
> in the VLZ only version.
>
> This is what I am trying to determine. Maybe the "Analogeezer"
answered
> that question, but his reply did not get onto my NewsServer.
>
> Bruce
Different than the plain ol' VLZ, VLZ Pro models have Mackie's "XDR"
preamps, the ones they claim to be just as good as any pre worth $1000
per channel.
Yeah, sure, you betcha.
-Brad
Vito Prosciutto
"D. Bruce Moore" <bru...@infocorpnow.com> wrote:
> I do not see a post from anyone by the name of "Analogeezer". I did
have a
> reply from someone saying that the pre-amps improved significantly
from 1202
> to the 1202 VLZ, but that he didn't know of a difference between the
VLZ and
> the VLZ Pro.
> I have read the Mackie ads, and the pre-amps that they refer to may
ALSO be
> in the VLZ only version.
No, the VLZ and VLZpro have different pre-amps. Mackie says the pro
version is better, when the VLZpros first came out, there was some
discussion here, and a few people expressed a preference for the older
preamps.
Getting an opportunity to A/B the two these days is unlikely, so the
usual advice, listen and decide for yourself is hard to give.
I've used both myself and I'd lean slightly towards the VLZ pro just
because it seems less prone to turn into a radio receiver (although it
seems to be an issue only in rare circumstances), but if I was offered
a good deal on a VLZ I wouldn't turn it down.
-vp
--
"Leave the gun, take the cannoli."
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
D. Bruce Moore
models.
You mentioned that the older pre-amps had a 'fuller' sound. I wonder if the
new pre-amps are actually still putting out the same bass/mid, but have
improved the highs - presumably for a more accurate representation of the
source? (I would certainly HOPE that this was the case)
Any thoughts?
Bruce
spud <mrmas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:r94j7tkfocdmj3q3g...@4ax.com...
> I have the original first run, vintage edition, soon to be collector's
> item 1202 model as well as the sterling, flagship,1202VLZpro. I've
> never heard the intermediary VLZ product. I have found the 1202 to
> pick up less hum, pc buzz, lighting noise than the later model. It
> also seems more sturdily built and simpler set up quickly. To me it
> sounds "fuller" in that a direct pre out has more bass with everything
> set flat. The new pres sound "brighter", more crisp, which can make
> them sound more open on some sources or thin on others. The VLZpro
> seems quite a bit louder at every stage and the general gain structure
> seems quirky (technical term meaning "unconventional" at least in my
> amateur experience). In general I've found them both to be great
> little keyboard, headphone mixers, extra inputs and "throw it in the
> van pieces". Both will pass acceptable but not supreme audio. I find
> the fact that they can be replaced without a lot of shock in the event
> of theft a real relief for "out work". I can concentrate on getting a
> performance instead of running a "watch the gear", "watch the gear",
> "watch the gear" algorithm in the background. Best of luck, s.
Mike Rivers
> You mentioned that the older pre-amps had a 'fuller' sound. I wonder if the
> new pre-amps are actually still putting out the same bass/mid, but have
> improved the highs - presumably for a more accurate representation of the
> source? (I would certainly HOPE that this was the case)
I noticed that when the VLZPro input stage is run at or very near
full gain, it seemed to lose some bottom end. This means it may not be
the best choice for minimalist recording where a lot of gain is
sometimes needed, unless the low frequency drop just happens to help
reduce air handler noise (a serendipitous bonus).
I never made a measurement of frequency response vs. gain setting, but
noticed this during a very informal and unscientific "shootout" one
afternoon while I was at Mackie. We were comparing the Mackie at 60 dB
gain (wide open) with my Great River set to match (about 5 dB under
full gain) and just listening to a mic dangled out the window to hear
ambient sound, the difference in the low end was pretty evident to me,
and others, with some reservation, concurred. Bringing both preamps
down to about 35 dB of gain and getting closer to the mic, there were
still differences, but the low end difference was much less
pronounced.
Incidentally, comparing sounds that aren't really familiar or musical
(like the ambient outdoor sounds, with cars driving by, trains, people
talking in the parking lot, the water in the creek) is a good way to
compare mics or preamps. You don't get distracted by, or wrapped up in
the program material. While it won't tell you which mic or preamp is
best for this or that voice, it will allow you go evaluate general
sonic characteristics. Thanks to David Josephson for that tip.
I'd be curious to know if the original 1202, which was designed by a
different engineer, at a different time, with somewhat different
design criteria, exhibits similar frequency response behavior at full
gain.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)