Mixer Comparison between Mackie 1202 VLZ and Yamaha MG 124CX
Prit
I have an opportunity to purchase a new Mixer for our audio setup at
the Church. We don't have multiple mics at the same time but we use 3
different inputs and hence the need for multiple inputs with the
individual controls so that we don't finagle with it each time we
choose an input to record the sermon or play music. In future we might
expand so we wanted some extra inputs.
With my limited knowledge we have shortlisted the Mackie 1202 VLZ and
the Yahama MG124. Not quite sure if they would fall in the same or
similar groups to be compared. But I am sure there are many a expert
musicians in this group.
Could you please compare the 2 mixers and let me know which is the
better one and if posssible why?
All the reviews I have read so far seem to side with the Mackie.
Thanks in advance.
P
Tim Perry
"Prit" <prith...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5be52495-d752-41b8...@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
Look at Peavey PV10 or PV14 - about the same price and more channels
Prit
wrote:
> "Prit" <prithwi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Would you consider Peavey PV10 gives a better sound output than the
mackie and the Yamaha?
Thanks
Mike Rivers
> With my limited knowledge we have shortlisted the Mackie 1202 VLZ and
> the Yahama MG124.
Are you looking at new or used mixers? The current version of that
Mackie model
is the 1202 VLZ3. The current model of the Yamaha is the MG124C. I think
that the
Mackie is better built (less plastic) but the Yamaha has a few features
that you might
find useful that might tip the scale. They both sound about the same,
and there wouldn't
be any significant difference for your application.
The Yamaha has slide faders rather than rotary pots for the channel
levels. That makes
it a little easier to see the settings at a glance. It also has 6 mic
inputs rather than the
4 that the Mackie has. I think all of the Yamaha mixers in that series
has a compressor
on each of the mic channels which you might find useful if your sources
are mostly speech.
Also, while you may not use it often, the Yamaha (I think) has a
built-in effect processor.
If you don't beat up your gear, I think the Yamaha would give you more
room for expansion
and a few features that you might grow into and use. As far as sound and
connectability goes,
they're close enough so you don't need to worry that one will not sound
as good as the other.
Scott Dorsey
At this price range, you don't get huge differences. Neither of the mixers
has great EQ, neither one of them lets you bypass the EQ, and they both
sound just fine in that kind of application if you keep the levels down and
are careful.
Buy whichever one you have better local support for. If you have a local
Yamaha dealer that treats you well, buy the Yamaha. If you have a local
Mackie dealer that treats you well, buy the Mackie. The support is more
valuable than the mixer itself.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Sean Conolly
news:5be52495-d752-41b8...@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
From first-hand experience with a number of MG series mixers, the biggest
weakness is that the mic inputs are easily driven into distortion. When
mic'ing drums or with loud singers the preamps will distort badly even with
the trim turned all the way down - the only solution is to use external
pads. Using a Mackie in the same conditions is fine.
That one problem is enough for me to recommend to people, especially
novices, to stay away from the MG boards. A little more money will get a
Mackie or Peavey or Soundcraft that will handle real world signals.
Sean
Moshe Goldfarb
The Mackie has better mechanical construction, but if it's just
sitting in a church it should not matter much.
Forget about the effects in the Yammy as they are pretty bad so just
evaluate on the mixing features.
The Peavey suggested is also a decent mixer.
A friend of mine uses one as a sub mixer for his keyboard rig and it
works great.
The sliders are a big plus IMHO so consider that.
I used to use a 1202 as a sub mixer and I really missed having sliders
instead of knobs because with faders one quick look and you can see
what's going on from a big picture POV.
Sound wise, at this price level, there isn't really any difference.
Some will argue the pre-amps in the Mackie are better etc.
You can't go wrong with any of them IMHO.
What I would do though, is go to a store like GC and play with them.
See how the controls feel, the layout looks and base your decision on
that.
Moshe Goldfarb
> From first-hand experience with a number of MG series mixers, the biggest
> weakness is that the mic inputs are easily driven into distortion. When
> mic'ing drums or with loud singers the preamps will distort badly even with
> the trim turned all the way down - the only solution is to use external
> pads. Using a Mackie in the same conditions is fine.
Interesting!
I borrowed one for a gig this past summer because I was in the studio
and my normal gear was all set up etc.
I didn't notice anything odd with preamps using a Beta 58 and a very
dynamic female jazz singer. What I did notice was the effects were
terrible, even for a live situation.
> That one problem is enough for me to recommend to people, especially
> novices, to stay away from the MG boards. A little more money will get a
> Mackie or Peavey or Soundcraft that will handle real world signals.
In that case, I would say so!
The Peavey unit is very nice.
This Soundcraft is also nice within it's price range:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/421738-REG/Soundcraft_Spirit_RW5734_EPM_6_6.html
> Sean
Sean Conolly
news:1mf0tn0wtcutp.7f771ifa9yix$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:39:50 -0500, Sean Conolly wrote:
>
>
>> From first-hand experience with a number of MG series mixers, the biggest
>> weakness is that the mic inputs are easily driven into distortion. When
>> mic'ing drums or with loud singers the preamps will distort badly even
>> with
>> the trim turned all the way down - the only solution is to use external
>> pads. Using a Mackie in the same conditions is fine.
>
> Interesting!
> I borrowed one for a gig this past summer because I was in the studio
> and my normal gear was all set up etc.
>
> I didn't notice anything odd with preamps using a Beta 58 and a very
> dynamic female jazz singer. What I did notice was the effects were
> terrible, even for a live situation.
You do have to hit it hard to get audible distortion, so maybe not an issue
for most folks. What I noticed was that the clip LED was constantly
flickering, and when I did some test recordings you could clearly see and
hear that it was clipping, but maybe not that audibly in a live situation.
As a drummer, mine was useless as a drum mixer so I dumped it after a couple
of weeks. My band uses one of the 16 channel MG's and we still have problems
just with rock vocals and guitars (I run my drums through my own rig -
nothing goes to the mains). The 16 channel version even has switchable
'limiters' on each channel, which as far as I can tell are useless. They
would have better off with a switchable 15 DB pad instead. The five band
graphic has the lowest fader at 125 Hz, which is perfect for adding mud to
the mix - I'm still trying to get the guys to understand that 125 Hz isn't
really bass, even if it is the lowest band on the EQ.
Honestly, having used many fine Yamaha boards in the past, I don't think
that Yamaha's engineers had anything to do with the MG line. I think it's
just something that was outsourced from a cut sheet and rebranded.
>> That one problem is enough for me to recommend to people, especially
>> novices, to stay away from the MG boards. A little more money will get a
>> Mackie or Peavey or Soundcraft that will handle real world signals.
>
> In that case, I would say so!
> The Peavey unit is very nice.
>
> This Soundcraft is also nice within it's price range:
>
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/421738-REG/Soundcraft_Spirit_RW5734_EPM_6_6.html
I should be getting one of those in a few weeks to replace my old Mackie
1202 - which was a victim of the floods we had back in September. The case
is rusting badly and it's developed some intermittant problems, but
amazingly it still works even after soaking in water for a week. If I wasn't
gigging so much I'd be tempted to live with it.
But the Soundcraft has two more channels which I really need, and sweepable
mids which I really like. I'm hoping it will sound better than the Mackie,
but really I just need something to get the job done reliably.
Sean
Mike Rivers
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:39:50 -0500, Sean Conolly wrote:
>> From first-hand experience with a number of MG series mixers, the
biggest
>> weakness is that the mic inputs are easily driven into distortion.
> I didn't notice anything odd with preamps using a Beta 58 and a very
> dynamic female jazz singer. What I did notice was the effects were
> terrible, even for a live situation.
I had one here for a week or so for a "second opinion" review and I
found that
the mic preamps had a decent range of control and didn't require a pad to
prevent clipping for other than really high levels out of the mic. I
didn't compare
them directly to a Mackie, but at those levels, I'd expect to put a pad
in line anyway.
I can tell you that by the time of the Mackie VLZ Pro, they had
increased the
range of the input gain trim control because they had complaints similar to
Sean's with the previous versions, so it's possible that the Mackie may
be a few
dB more clip-resistant than the Yamaha, but either one should handle
anything
short of a hot condenser mic a foot away from an accelerating motorcycle
without
front end clipping.
I never even listened to the effects, but the compressor was OK on a
singer.
Mike Rivers
> Honestly, having used many fine Yamaha boards in the past, I don't think
> that Yamaha's engineers had anything to do with the MG line. I think it's
> just something that was outsourced from a cut sheet and rebranded.
I'm pretty sure that's correct. Maybe they had a little to do with it in
providing
specifications and verifying that it meets those specifications, but
it's a Chinese
mixer for sure.
Moshe Goldfarb
> "Moshe Goldfarb" <brick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1mf0tn0wtcutp.7f771ifa9yix$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:39:50 -0500, Sean Conolly wrote:
>>
>>
>>> From first-hand experience with a number of MG series mixers, the biggest
>>> weakness is that the mic inputs are easily driven into distortion. When
>>> mic'ing drums or with loud singers the preamps will distort badly even
>>> with
>>> the trim turned all the way down - the only solution is to use external
>>> pads. Using a Mackie in the same conditions is fine.
>>
>> Interesting!
>> I borrowed one for a gig this past summer because I was in the studio
>> and my normal gear was all set up etc.
>>
>> I didn't notice anything odd with preamps using a Beta 58 and a very
>> dynamic female jazz singer. What I did notice was the effects were
>> terrible, even for a live situation.
>
> You do have to hit it hard to get audible distortion, so maybe not an issue
> for most folks. What I noticed was that the clip LED was constantly
> flickering, and when I did some test recordings you could clearly see and
> hear that it was clipping, but maybe not that audibly in a live situation.
Gotcha!
I don't doubt it at all.
> As a drummer, mine was useless as a drum mixer so I dumped it after a couple
> of weeks. My band uses one of the 16 channel MG's and we still have problems
> just with rock vocals and guitars (I run my drums through my own rig -
> nothing goes to the mains). The 16 channel version even has switchable
> 'limiters' on each channel, which as far as I can tell are useless. They
> would have better off with a switchable 15 DB pad instead. The five band
> graphic has the lowest fader at 125 Hz, which is perfect for adding mud to
> the mix - I'm still trying to get the guys to understand that 125 Hz isn't
> really bass, even if it is the lowest band on the EQ.
> Honestly, having used many fine Yamaha boards in the past, I don't think
> that Yamaha's engineers had anything to do with the MG line. I think it's
> just something that was outsourced from a cut sheet and rebranded.
I've used some fine Yamaha boards in the past as well.
They have always been sleepers IMHO that offered excellent performance
at a reasonable price. They don't get the publicity some of the others
get. It's a shame it appears some of their models are going downhill.
Oh well, it's happening a lot lately.
>
>>> That one problem is enough for me to recommend to people, especially
>>> novices, to stay away from the MG boards. A little more money will get a
>>> Mackie or Peavey or Soundcraft that will handle real world signals.
>>
>> In that case, I would say so!
>> The Peavey unit is very nice.
>>
>> This Soundcraft is also nice within it's price range:
>>
>> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/421738-REG/Soundcraft_Spirit_RW5734_EPM_6_6.html
>
> I should be getting one of those in a few weeks to replace my old Mackie
> 1202 - which was a victim of the floods we had back in September. The case
> is rusting badly and it's developed some intermittant problems, but
> amazingly it still works even after soaking in water for a week. If I wasn't
> gigging so much I'd be tempted to live with it.
Only problems I have ever had with Mackie is the famous ribbon problem
and an occasional dirty pot.
Both were easy to fix.
Well, replacing the ribbon cable wasn't so easy, but doable.
They sent me a new cable overnight when I described the symptoms.
The box was well out of warranty.
I can't vouch for them now that at least some, maybe all, of their
products are made in China though.
I haven't used any of that vintage.
> But the Soundcraft has two more channels which I really need, and sweepable
> mids which I really like. I'm hoping it will sound better than the Mackie,
> but really I just need something to get the job done reliably.
>
> Sean
I had a Spirit Folio on the road with me and it survived some pretty
nasty lounge lizard playing conditions without a hitch.
Moshe Goldfarb
> I had one here for a week or so for a "second opinion" review and I
> found that
> the mic preamps had a decent range of control and didn't require a pad to
> prevent clipping for other than really high levels out of the mic. I
> didn't compare
> them directly to a Mackie, but at those levels, I'd expect to put a pad
> in line anyway.
>
> I can tell you that by the time of the Mackie VLZ Pro, they had
> increased the
> range of the input gain trim control because they had complaints similar to
> Sean's with the previous versions, so it's possible that the Mackie may
> be a few
> dB more clip-resistant than the Yamaha, but either one should handle
> anything
> short of a hot condenser mic a foot away from an accelerating motorcycle
> without
> front end clipping.
>
> I never even listened to the effects, but the compressor was OK on a
> singer.
Maybe a production change to fix problems?
I wasn't using it for drums though, although the jazz gig I was doing,
basically a Linda Ronstadt / Nelson Riddle tribute thing had a very
dynamic singer.
Nothing as dynamic as drums though!!
Sean Conolly
> Only problems I have ever had with Mackie is the famous ribbon problem
> and an occasional dirty pot.
> Both were easy to fix.
> Well, replacing the ribbon cable wasn't so easy, but doable.
> They sent me a new cable overnight when I described the symptoms.
> The box was well out of warranty.
My 1202 has very few ribbon connectors - just on the back board for the
inserts and XLR outputs. The main board was in two pieces because they sit
at slightly different levels in the case, and there's maybe 30 bare metal
jumpers connecting the two, soldered directly into the boards. It's at least
10 years old so the design may have changed later. If it hadn't been in the
flood it probably would have lasted another 10 years. I'm just glad the
drums were all on pallets above the water.
> I can't vouch for them now that at least some, maybe all, of their
> products are made in China though.
> I haven't used any of that vintage.
Nor have I, but I really hope that they've excercised enough authority over
the quality control to continue producing solid products. I have a Chineese
made Behringer DEQ2496 that has been wonderful, so it certainly can be done.
> I had a Spirit Folio on the road with me and it survived some pretty
> nasty lounge lizard playing conditions without a hitch.
I've never used anything in the Spirit line, but every Soundcraft I've used
was solid and sounded fine. I have high hopes for the EPM.
Sean
Scott Dorsey
Sean Conolly <sjcono...@yaaho.com> wrote:
>"Moshe Goldfarb" <brick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1opvcwzeebl4f$.al7dly9d5eml$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Only problems I have ever had with Mackie is the famous ribbon problem
>> and an occasional dirty pot.
>> Both were easy to fix.
>> Well, replacing the ribbon cable wasn't so easy, but doable.
>> They sent me a new cable overnight when I described the symptoms.
>> The box was well out of warranty.
>
>My 1202 has very few ribbon connectors - just on the back board for the
>inserts and XLR outputs.
Yup! Those are the ones that go bad, though. You lose one pin of the
XLR output, and suddenly one channel is 6dB lower than the other. Just
clean them and pack them with grease and they'll be fine.
>> I can't vouch for them now that at least some, maybe all, of their
>> products are made in China though.
>> I haven't used any of that vintage.
>
>Nor have I, but I really hope that they've excercised enough authority over
>the quality control to continue producing solid products. I have a Chineese
>made Behringer DEQ2496 that has been wonderful, so it certainly can be done.
The major push toward lead-free solders as the result of RoHS is killing
that, though.
Moshe Goldfarb
> "Moshe Goldfarb" <brick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1opvcwzeebl4f$.al7dly9d5eml$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Only problems I have ever had with Mackie is the famous ribbon problem
>> and an occasional dirty pot.
>> Both were easy to fix.
>> Well, replacing the ribbon cable wasn't so easy, but doable.
>> They sent me a new cable overnight when I described the symptoms.
>> The box was well out of warranty.
>
> My 1202 has very few ribbon connectors - just on the back board for the
> inserts and XLR outputs. The main board was in two pieces because they sit
> at slightly different levels in the case, and there's maybe 30 bare metal
> jumpers connecting the two, soldered directly into the boards. It's at least
> 10 years old so the design may have changed later. If it hadn't been in the
> flood it probably would have lasted another 10 years. I'm just glad the
> drums were all on pallets above the water.
Yea.
My ribbon cable problem was on a 1604.
Lot's more cables in that one :(
Built like tanks though.
>
>> I can't vouch for them now that at least some, maybe all, of their
>> products are made in China though.
>> I haven't used any of that vintage.
>
> Nor have I, but I really hope that they've excercised enough authority over
> the quality control to continue producing solid products. I have a Chineese
> made Behringer DEQ2496 that has been wonderful, so it certainly can be done.
It boils down to quality control. The Chinese front load their
manufacturing process in that they spend a lot of time setting up,
tooling, training, tweaking and refining the process. Unfortunately
once manufacturing begins, things change. Personnel come and go,
tolerances change in the machines etc. These things often get missed
because the philosophy is "we set this up to be perfect from the start
and it should remain that way". They strive for output.
By the time they discover any potential problems, the gear is already
on a boat to USA and it's a crap shoot as to whether it gets sold or
not.
I've used some products from China that have been fine, and others
that have been horrible.
>
>> I had a Spirit Folio on the road with me and it survived some pretty
>> nasty lounge lizard playing conditions without a hitch.
>
> I've never used anything in the Spirit line, but every Soundcraft I've used
> was solid and sounded fine. I have high hopes for the EPM.
Pretty good bang for the buck. They never get the press Mackie gets
but are just as good IMHO.
My project studio uses a Ghost and it has been flawless.
>
> Sean
Moshe Goldfarb
> The major push toward lead-free solders as the result of RoHS is killing
> that, though.
> --scott
Interesting!
I didn't know that.
I know about RoHS, but wasn't aware of the solder problem.
Scott Dorsey
>On 30 Dec 2009 09:49:59 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> The major push toward lead-free solders as the result of RoHS is killing
>> that, though.
>
>I didn't know that.
>I know about RoHS, but wasn't aware of the solder problem.
It's a nightmare for the higher end audio companies who want to sell
equipment into Europe but actually want it to be reliable. It's not
just a tin whisker issue either (which is a serious problem with tube
gear that has a lot of high DC voltages inside), but also a matter of
cold joints that fail prematurely.
I have had to rework so many boards that really should never have failed
in the first place, just because of lead-free solder issues.
I applaud the Europeans for trying to keep lead out of landfills in an age
where consumer electronics are cheap and disposable. The problem is that
it's shortening the lifetime of a lot of other equipment and resulting in
more gear going into the landfill faster.
Moshe Goldfarb
> I applaud the Europeans for trying to keep lead out of landfills in an age
> where consumer electronics are cheap and disposable. The problem is that
> it's shortening the lifetime of a lot of other equipment and resulting in
> more gear going into the landfill faster.
> --scott
Kind of self defeating!
I've always wondered why we can't come up with a reliable, non toxic
glue that is conductive, easy to use in manufacturing and only sticks
to a certain type of metal, say copper.
Mike Rivers
> I applaud the Europeans for trying to keep lead out of landfills in an age
> where consumer electronics are cheap and disposable. The problem is that
> it's shortening the lifetime of a lot of other equipment and resulting in
> more gear going into the landfill faster.
Soon they'll discover that they don't want antimony and bismuth in their
landfills either.
Peter Larsen
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
Recyclomania, an entire rainbow of differently coloured waste bins, is
supposed to address that.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Prit
Thanks a lot for this very lively discussion. I will go to the Guitar
center to look for the mixers. I am hoping they have the Soundcraft
Spirits along with the Yamahas and the Mackies. Although i should say
it seems like the general consensus seems to go with the safer Mackies
(1202 VLZ3). I am leaning towards it as well.
Thanks again,
Prit
Peter Larsen
> Hi Guys,
Based on my disappointment with my second hand 1202, first version, (bought
as a spare if I need a bit extra) I disagree, I bought another Soundcraft
EPM instead, much smoother and better ergonomics.
> Prit
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Prit
Hi Peter,
In general would you consider Soundcrafts a better make then the
Mackies? I get the impression that they are a high end audio company.
I just wanted to be sure that they have a good warranty on the
equipments incase something goes wrong since I am buying it directly
off the shelf.
Best Regards
Prit
Peter Larsen
> In general would you consider Soundcrafts a better make then the
> Mackies?
I don't like that kind of statement, so my reply is a "no comments
possible". You need to look at the context of the actual equipment.
> I get the impression that they are a high end audio company.
They are good at what they do.
> I just wanted to be sure that they have a good warranty on the
> equipments incase something goes wrong since I am buying it directly
> off the shelf.
The warranty that matters is the one printed on the invoice then.
> Best Regards
Mike Rivers
> In general would you consider Soundcrafts a better make then the
> Mackies? I get the impression that they are a high end audio company.
Soundcraft is a relatively high end company and they make large format
consoles, primarily for live sound. Spirit is the company under the larger
Soundcraft umbrella that makes the small mixers you're talking about here.
They really aren't any better built than any others in the same class these
days. If you're going to hammer on it, Mackie is probably still your best
bet. If you're going to treat it with respect (which is not the same as
handling
it with kid gloves - you shouldn't have to do that) you should look at
differences
in features and see if there's one that would be preferable for your
application.
For example, for mixing, I think that linear faders are an advantage
over rotary
pots. But they cost more and may wear out sooner than rotary pots. Will
a Yamaha
or Soundcraft develop scratchy level controls sooner than a Mackie? Who
knows?
I don't think there's any really good data about that, only anecdotes
(and everyone
knows that on the 'net, people nearly always post about the bad stuff
and rarely
post about the good stuff).
> I just wanted to be sure that they have a good warranty on the
> equipments incase something goes wrong since I am buying it directly
> off the shelf.
Warranty support should be first through your dealer, and secondarily
through
the manufacturer. Support varies from dealer to dealer, and from country to
country. Ask not what you can do for your dealer, ask what your dealer
can do
for you.
Arny Krueger
> On Dec 31, 4:35 am, "Peter Larsen" <digi...@hotmail.com>
> In general would you consider Soundcrafts a better make
> then the Mackies? I get the impression that they are a
> high end audio company. I just wanted to be sure that
> they have a good warranty on the equipments incase
> something goes wrong since I am buying it directly off
> the shelf.
IME, Soundcraft >> Mackie would be a general industry opinion.
Scott Dorsey
>
>In general would you consider Soundcrafts a better make then the
>Mackies? I get the impression that they are a high end audio company.
They used to be.
But the low end gear from just about ALL of the companies are all made
in the same factories with the same parts these days. The designs are
a little different, but they are remarkably simolar now.
>I just wanted to be sure that they have a good warranty on the
>equipments incase something goes wrong since I am buying it directly
>off the shelf.
Then buy from the local dealer that you trust the most and provides the
best service. Pick the dealer, not the brand.
Arny Krueger
news:hhifcr$ne8$1...@panix2.panix.com
> Prit <prith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In general would you consider Soundcrafts a better make
>> then the Mackies? I get the impression that they are a
>> high end audio company.
> They used to be.
> But the low end gear from just about ALL of the companies
> are all made in the same factories with the same parts
> these days. The designs are a little different, but they
> are remarkably similar now.
And of course all of those factories are in the same country with a
five-letter name.
Conventional wisdom around here (Detroit) about factories in said place is
that they are what the design/marketing house makes them be.
If you define well a quality product, and pay them enough to make it, and
supervise the results carefully enough, you will indeed get a good product.,
If you assume, or otherwise slack off at any of the above steps, well you
have only yourself to blame.