MACKIE 1202VLZ4 any thoughts?

The Lounge Other Gear
#69

Played around with 1202 yesterday. A couple of initial observations.

  1. For some reason I overlooked that there was no instrument level input switch like I had on an old board years ago. Not a problem since I have a couple of Sans Amp pedals. I experimented with running a guitar and bass into the board with my Sans Amp VT Bass DI, and it sounded fantastic, particularly when running another overdrive or fuzz pedal into the San Amp. I usually hate with no reverb or delay, but it actually sound fantastic dry. Nice headroom and handled everything I through at it like a champ.

I want to experiment using some mics on my actual amp, but even going straight into the board with the DI will make for a really nice little recording rig.

  1. I had no trouble running the Strymon El Cap and Flint into the board on the Aux Send - Return. I just scratched the surface though, so this will require lots of experimenting.

I was also able to connect my actual Fender '63 (reissue) reverb tank to board, but the results were not as awesome as I was hoping. It doesnā€™t sound anywhere near as lush as the Strymon. Iā€™m wondering if this is something that would benefit from a reamp box to solve the instrument/line issue. Unfortunately it would require a bit of an investment to try out. If I get the urge to run my drum machines and synths through other guitar pedals I might take the plunge at some point, but too many things to buy right now, so itā€™s low on the list.

#73

The tank sounds absolutely amazing run into my 1970s Vibrochamp. I spent ages looking for my ideal guitar tone (at Tokyo condo volume) and finally found it with that combination. Iā€™ll definitely be micā€™ing that up and putting those Onyx pres to the test!

The tank on the board with synths running through it doesnā€™t sound nearly as lush. I may be doing something wrong. Iā€™ll keep playing with it.

#74

This maybe because the tank is mono, and digital reverbs are mostly stereo, so youā€™re not getting the ā€˜widthā€™ you expect. To get around this you could try putting the tankā€™s output through a stereo chorus to widen it out.

#75

Thatā€™s definitely worth experimenting with. I have the Mƶbius, so Iā€™ll try running the tank into that and running back into the board in stereo with a wide chorus effect.

Right now Iā€™m running the Flint in mono as well, and it sounds a lot more lush. I wonder if thatā€™s because it does 100% wet. Running the tank into my amp in mono it sounds gorgeous.

#76

Guitar amps are built to impart tone and character to the signal which is also affected by the cabinet, and becomes an overall part of an electric guitars tone. Mixers are designed to be mostly clean and clearā€¦ Guitar amps in general have more mid range and ā€œwarmthā€ā€¦
Also the reverb 63 is designed to go between a low impedance instrument (guitar) and a high impedance input (guitar amp), itā€™s not specifically designed to be in a line level audio loop. It will work, but sound slightly different.
You can probably find some settings in a mixer loop that sound OK, but it will never sound just like through the amp, for that sound youā€™d want to mic itā€¦
:cat:
Edit: youā€™d most likely want to lower the send level from the mixer to the verb as it is expecting an instrument signal which is much lower than line level, on the return youā€™ll need to crank the gain more as the verb is outputting an instrument level signal, you could also try a DI box from the verbs output to an xlr input of the mixer and see how it sounds, especially if the increased gain on the return becomes noisyā€¦

1 Like
#77

Good tip about lowering the send volume to try to match instrument level signal, and boosting the return. Iā€™ll try this when I get home tonight. It did seem like I was really slamming the tank and was quiet coming back. This might help.

Like you said though, this was obviously not designed to be run in a mixer loop, so itā€™s more of an experiment, but I definitely had visions of Lee Perry and King Tubby in mind. :slight_smile:

#79

Hello all. Been following this thread on and off for awhile but now Iā€™m super curious because Iā€™m thinking of getting my first mixer and due to this thread am thinking about the 802 or the 1202. Wondering now if you might advise.

The main reason for it is to have something small for live sets. Live sets will def include the OT and probably the AR plus maybe my small modular, an iPad, maybe some FX boxes and a compressor to top it off.

The work I do in studio is track by track and I rarely end up ā€œjammingā€ with various gear. But that may only be due to my not having anything exactly to run everything through. Iā€™m not sure.

I donā€™t have a lot of space to work with which is why Iā€™m leaning towards the 802. However, I know that itā€™s a bit foolish to not to consider out growing something. I donā€™t need the direct injects though, I donā€™t really need 4 preamps (orā€¦maybe OT in studio mode?) If it has sweepable EQs Iā€™d go for the 12 in a heartbeat. I did notice however the PSU socket between the two are extremely different (ther 802 is that awful three prong thingā€¦can I use a regular adapter if Iā€™m in different countries?)

Any advice would be most helpful. Thanks yā€™all.

#81

Thanks!

I didnā€™t see that above. Were you referring to the VLZ4 series?

#82

I just got the 1202 and I absolutely love it. Thatā€™s said, itā€™s more of a studio piece for me since I live in a big city and go most places by train/subway. Iā€™m probably going to start playing out pretty regularly so Iā€™ll probably get something small to throw in a messenger bag to be able to use my Digitakt and a Volca (or two) or small synth.

#84

Thank you!

#85

hey, considering buying a mackie 1202 vlz4 here and would like to make some things clear to me. I would like to route signals to different spots. Is the following overview correct?

ā€“ Channels are send to Main Out, so I have L (#1) and R (#2) as seperate outputs
ā€“ Aux 1 as seperate output (#3)
ā€“ Aux 2 as seperate output (#4)
ā€“ Mute send to Track 3/4 also gives me a L (#5) and R (#6) output

all of these are divided from the main mix so it is possible to route 6 mono signals to different spots, right? thanks!

#86

apologies, a bit of a n00b-ish/ignorant inquiry regarding the lower end Mackie mixersā€¦ I recently purchased a Mix8 on impulse, as Iā€™ve got a fairly minimal setup and tend toward more impromptu live jamming and sketching sound art. Is the sound quality (noise) etc. markedly worse compared to the VLZ series? I understand that the features are far more limited on a Mix8 compared to the VLZ series, but Iā€™m only using a small synth, with a Digitakt, along with other lo fi miscellanea, with very minimal effectsā€¦ Iā€™m just looking to blend elements, taking advantage of the basic eqā€™s etc. Would I have any use for the pre-amps besides for recording purposes? Do the pre-amps affect direct, line-in signals (1/4") ? Should I be considering the VLZ series for better, or cleaner, more transparent or tightened sound qualities? Appreciate any feedback, thank you.

#87

Yeah, you got it right.

Thereā€™s also another two outputs, Control Room (#7 and #8) that can be set to either Main Mix (whatever is coming out of the master out), Alt 3/4 (whatever is muted) or Tape (tape input), or a combination of those 3, and it has its own separate volume control. So you have even more flexibility as to where your signal is sent.

The Aux 1 can be set to pre-fader if you like. So on this aux you can have a fully wet effect.

To top things off, the master output comes out of the jack outputs, but thereā€™s also copies of it on two XLR outs as well. Comes in handy sometimes if you want to send your main mix to two different places.

This mixer really is awesome! I have the old, non-VLZ version which I picked up for around Ā£70 and my only complaint is that it makes a little bit of noise in the room (internal fan?).

1 Like
#88

thank you very much! I really like the fact to be that flexible. Only the price is a bit high but I can understand that it is a high quality product. As an alternative I found out about the Soundcraft EPM6 with which I could also have like 6 seperate outputs. this one is 100ā‚¬ cheaper ā€“ do you have a reason for me to choose one over the other? thanks

10921354_800.jpg505Ɨ620 73.2 KB

1 Like
#89

Canā€™t comment on the Soundcraft, sorry. The features of the Mackie have remained unchanged for the past like 15 years theyā€™ve been making it (I think they made some slight upgrades to the preamps and aesthetics, thatā€™s it) so you can always try to track down a used one for cheap.

#90

Most small analogue mixers sound fine these days. The differences are more in build quality, knob feel, and features.

1 Like
#91

Iā€™ve heard that the Onyx preamps are a pretty big step up, so it might be worth getting a new one if mics are important.

#93

To add to that, if this to be a studio-only based mixer, your money might be better spent elsewhere (the new Soundcraft Signature mixers come to mind.)

But if weā€™re talking about live use (as I was), then I donā€™t think in terms of reliability anything comes close to Mackie. My opinion is that for the build quality plus features, itā€™s amazingly priced.

1 Like
#94

well, itā€™s not for live-use but for an installation setup in art context.

got an offer for 150 ā‚¬ for a 1202 VLZ (first generation), mint condition. Still not sure if this one will be good enough or if I should get newest available mixer in terms of best build quality, preamps and stuff for future projects, too. Anyone with experience buying a second hand mixer?

#96

Has anyone gone from using an Onyx to a VLZ4? Or been able to compare sound quality?

I need to make desk space & iā€™m thinking of selling my Onyx 1620i & getting a smaller VLZ4.

I tend to eq very little, & just find sounds that work well in the first place. So i donā€™t really use the finer eq on the Onyx. Iā€™ve also cut down on the amount of send/return fx I use. So 2 is fine.

I really just need the overall mixer quality to be good, for studio recording.

Cheers!