| Author |
Message |
tiglath
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:05 pm Post subject:
Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
I was considering getting a Mackie 1402-VLZ PRO Compact Mixer or a
Behringer Eurorack UB1832FX-PRO to go with my new Bose PAS PA.
The Mackie seems more professional but the Behringer comes loaded with
stuff and it's perhaps better for those who do not have lots of gear.
Despite the fights I've seen from advocated for both brands,
reliability doesn't seem to be a problem unless you get a lemon.
That Larry Carlton uses a Mackie in his live rig tells me that it must
sound good. I don't know about the Behringer.
Maybe I need neither since I have a Yamaha AW16G multi-track recorder,
which is part mixer, but I wonder if it's better left as a recorder and
use a proper mixer for the PA.
Comments appreciated
Many thanks
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
George Gleason
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:02 am Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
"tiglath" <temp4@tiglath.net> wrote in news:1128531901.157664.270380
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
| Quote: |
I was considering getting a Mackie 1402-VLZ PRO Compact Mixer or a
Behringer Eurorack UB1832FX-PRO to go with my new Bose PAS PA.
The Mackie seems more professional but the Behringer comes loaded with
stuff and it's perhaps better for those who do not have lots of gear.
Despite the fights I've seen from advocated for both brands,
reliability doesn't seem to be a problem unless you get a lemon.
That Larry Carlton uses a Mackie in his live rig tells me that it must
sound good. I don't know about the Behringer.
Maybe I need neither since I have a Yamaha AW16G multi-track recorder,
which is part mixer, but I wonder if it's better left as a recorder and
use a proper mixer for the PA.
Comments appreciated
Many thanks
|
contact Larry Pattis over at
rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
the bose PAS is not something sound engineer use,it is a muso owned kind of
thing
George |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tiglath
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:05 am Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
George Gleason wrote:
| Quote: | "tiglath" <temp4@tiglath.net> wrote in news:1128531901.157664.270380
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
I was considering getting a Mackie 1402-VLZ PRO Compact Mixer or a
Behringer Eurorack UB1832FX-PRO to go with my new Bose PAS PA.
The Mackie seems more professional but the Behringer comes loaded with
stuff and it's perhaps better for those who do not have lots of gear.
Despite the fights I've seen from advocated for both brands,
reliability doesn't seem to be a problem unless you get a lemon.
That Larry Carlton uses a Mackie in his live rig tells me that it must
sound good. I don't know about the Behringer.
Maybe I need neither since I have a Yamaha AW16G multi-track recorder,
which is part mixer, but I wonder if it's better left as a recorder and
use a proper mixer for the PA.
Comments appreciated
Many thanks
contact Larry Pattis over at
rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
the bose PAS is not something sound engineer use,it is a muso owned kind of
thing
George
|
Thank you for your reply, but the Bose PAS was only incidental to my
post. My question was rather whether the Yamaha AW16G is anywhere near
as a mixer as the Mackie and the Behringer I mentioned, and which of
the two mixers is best to get for home use.
Regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phildo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:32 am Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
"tiglath" <temp4@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:1128531901.157664.270380@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | That Larry Carlton uses a Mackie in his live rig tells me that it must
sound good.
|
No, it tells you that mackie pay him a lot of money to use it. Quite often
endorsed gear appears in the racks but is not actually in the signal chain.
Other people use things like guitar amps but put their own custom
electronics in them.
Phildo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Gleason
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:10 pm Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich) wrote in
news:1h3yvft.cpght314hat1qN%walkinay@thegrid.net:
| Quote: | tiglath wrote:
George Gleason wrote:
"tiglath" wrote:
I was considering getting a Mackie 1402-VLZ PRO Compact Mixer or
a Behringer Eurorack UB1832FX-PRO to go with my new Bose PAS PA.
The Mackie seems more professional but the Behringer comes loaded
with stuff and it's perhaps better for those who do not have lots
of gear.
Despite the fights I've seen from advocated for both brands,
reliability doesn't seem to be a problem unless you get a lemon.
That Larry Carlton uses a Mackie in his live rig tells me that it
must sound good. I don't know about the Behringer.
Maybe I need neither since I have a Yamaha AW16G multi-track
recorder, which is part mixer, but I wonder if it's better left
as a recorder and use a proper mixer for the PA.
contact Larry Pattis over at
rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
the bose PAS is not something sound engineer use,it is a muso owned
kind of thing
Thank you for your reply, but the Bose PAS was only incidental to my
post. My question was rather whether the Yamaha AW16G is anywhere
near as a mixer as the Mackie and the Behringer I mentioned, and
which of the two mixers is best to get for home use.
The issue is the presets in the bose prevent lots of gear from |
interacting with it in the "expected " way
the fact your using the bose makes it central to your question
George |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tiglath
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:53 pm Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
George Gleason wrote:
| Quote: |
Maybe I need neither since I have a Yamaha AW16G multi-track
recorder, which is part mixer, but I wonder if it's better left
as a recorder and use a proper mixer for the PA.
contact Larry Pattis over at
rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
the bose PAS is not something sound engineer use,it is a muso owned
kind of thing
Thank you for your reply, but the Bose PAS was only incidental to my
post. My question was rather whether the Yamaha AW16G is anywhere
near as a mixer as the Mackie and the Behringer I mentioned, and
which of the two mixers is best to get for home use.
The issue is the presets in the bose prevent lots of gear from
interacting with it in the "expected " way
the fact your using the bose makes it central to your question
|
Pardon my ignorance but the Bose PAS is at the end of the signal chain
and all it can do is color what it is given. Having tried it out I am
mighty pleased with the way my guitars sound out of the PODxt and into
the Bose and the quality of recorded music. Since I won't be using
their tiny subs but my 18" powered JBLs the end result is partly
conventional.
Again, the Bose's coloration can affect the end result but the mixing
capabilities of the Mackie or the Behringer versus my Yamaha AW16G
remain independent of it, and that was the meat of my post.
I've decided to get a Mackie 1402 VLZ Pro, but thanks anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Gleason
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:06 pm Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
"tiglath" <temp4@tiglath.net> wrote in news:1128617589.631555.158660
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
| Quote: |
George Gleason wrote:
Maybe I need neither since I have a Yamaha AW16G multi-track
recorder, which is part mixer, but I wonder if it's better left
as a recorder and use a proper mixer for the PA.
contact Larry Pattis over at
rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
the bose PAS is not something sound engineer use,it is a muso
owned
kind of thing
Thank you for your reply, but the Bose PAS was only incidental to
my
post. My question was rather whether the Yamaha AW16G is anywhere
near as a mixer as the Mackie and the Behringer I mentioned, and
which of the two mixers is best to get for home use.
the only significAnt diffrence between the 1402 and the 6 xlr
behringer is cost |
they both sound essentiallly the same, the behringer may be a bit more
reliable as its power supply is external, the mackies is internal and
generates quite a lot of heat
but the behringer costs 1/3 what the mackie costs, due to better
manufactureing and economy of scale
either will work, you'll spend considerably less on the behringer
what I can't predict is what the bose will soundlike when fed from one of
these mixers
I have never seen a aw16 used as a performance mixer, I have no idea of
how it would work out in that application
george |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phildo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:37 am Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
"tiglath" <temp4@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:1128617589.631555.158660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[quote]I've decided to get a Mackie 1402 VLZ Pro, but thanks anyway.
[/quote]
Don't waste your money. The Behringer is a better mixer and half the price.
Phildo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pooh Bear
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
tiglath wrote:
[quote]I was considering getting a Mackie 1402-VLZ PRO Compact Mixer or a
Behringer Eurorack UB1832FX-PRO to go with my new Bose PAS PA.
[/quote]
AAaaarrrgghhhHH *~@%%
You used the B-word ! And I don't mean behringer.
Wash your mouth out immediately. Pls don't post the B-word again.
Graham |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hank alrich
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
Phildo wrote:
[quote]"tiglath" wrote...
I've decided to get a Mackie 1402 VLZ Pro, but thanks anyway.
Don't waste your money. The Behringer is a better mixer and half the price.
[/quote]
What Behringer mixer directly correlates to the Mackie 1402? Same number
of mic pres, etc.
--
ha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phildo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 12, 2005 8:21 pm Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:D-qdndtWrO4vi9DeRVn-tA@comcast.com...
[quote]What you expect Phil (or any sound engineer not involved
in sales) to have complete knowledge of the lower end of
the market products?
Never did any such thing.
[/quote]
Seems like you do Arny.
[quote]Here's an interesting concept - talk about things you have experience
with.
[/quote]
I have experience with mackie and Behringer products and know that the
Behringer is a better desk than the mackie for less than half the price. WHy
do you seem to have a problem, with that?
[quote]I only have experience with one Mackie console - the SR32 and only one
Behringer console - a MXB 1002. So when it comes to Mackie and Behringer
console I try to stick close to them or keep quiet, or label my comments
as what they are - comments from friends or based on analysis of vendor
info.
[/quote]
I have experience with quite a few models from both companies going back
over 10 years. Your point Arny?
[quote]Phil and George rant about people's lack of experience and pretentions of
expertise. So, what about theirs?
[/quote]
We are both professional sound engineers with many years of experience,
unlike yourself who volunteers in his local church because nobody else
wanted the job and yet tried to pass himself off as an expert on everything.
[quote]George recommends a console with TRS jacks and damns another console
because it has TRS jacks, all in the same thread.
[/quote]
Jeez, get off this TRS thing Arny. Most of it is in your head anyway. All
you are doing is taking people out of context. Remember, it was YOU who was
made a complete fool of in that thread (and almost any thread you post in
come to think of it).
[quote]Phil suggests a Behringer console as an alternative to the Mackie 1402 and
then looks silly when he can't come up with the model number of a
corresponding Behringer console.
[/quote]
Why should I as a professional engineer doing a job you can only dream about
doing know the catalogue number of every piece of kit out there? You are
living in a dreamworld Arny.
[quote]Tim, don't you think its a good thing to judge people for consistency,
ability to stand behind their claims, and depth of knowlege in areas that
they claim to be expert on?
[/quote]
That has to be THE most hypocritical and ironic statement made on here this
year.
Phildo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hank alrich
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:00 pm Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
John Hall wrote:
[quote]"Phildo" wrote...
Your logic is terminally flawed by your desire to try and humiliate me the
way I do to you several times a day. The big difference here Arny is that
I know my shit while you are just full of it.
You both need to just grow up in my eyes.
[/quote]
You'll need very small eyes for them at this rate. <g>
--
ha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Scott
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:33 pm Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
"George Gleason" <Bmoas@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:I3a3f.134147$qY1.30970@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
[quote]walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich) wrote in
news:1h4b5yp.15br3gn1x04yfiN%walkinay@thegrid.net:
Phildo wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote...
Phildo wrote:
"tiglath" wrote...
I've decided to get a Mackie 1402 VLZ Pro, but thanks anyway.
Don't waste your money. The Behringer is a better mixer and half
the price.
What Behringer mixer directly correlates to the Mackie 1402? Same
number of mic pres, etc.
Not sure. Look in the catalogue or at the website.
For the money you have to spend you could get something bigger in a
Behringer and leave yourself room to expand.
I cannot find in the Beri line anything that directly matches the 1402
when it comes to number of mic pres, size, weight, etc. If I don't
need to expand (I have other consoles) and size is important (I don't
like to carry more than I need when performing) the 1402 looks like a
ticket.
I'm going through this right now. My approx. 14-yr. old 1202 is
finally going to wear out. The 1402, which wasn't around when I bought
the 1202, offers just about the right collection of features. I would
like to spend less, yes, but not if it means I have to carry a
wallwart or more weight or size. I'd much prefer the EQ on the Onyx
line (this EQ is outstanding), but again, the Onyx 1620 is much larger
than the 1402 and that might be a deal breaker in this case.
One does not always need to expand, and one sometimes prefers compact
expediency when carrying one's own performing kit. "Something bigger"
is not always desirable.
--
ha
consider for a moment, on small desks like these a line lump is actually
to your advantage allowing a quieter desk(the ps is the major source of
noise in a desk) and a desk without the heat of a internal p/s
given two identical small mixers like the 1402(which I have owned
several) I would consider the one with the external ps to have a clear
advantage both in sound quality and reliability
[/quote]
And is easier/quicker to replace an external PSU than an internal one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Scott
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:47 pm Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1h4b5yp.15br3gn1x04yfiN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
[quote]Phildo wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote...
Phildo wrote:
"tiglath" wrote...
I've decided to get a Mackie 1402 VLZ Pro, but thanks anyway.
Don't waste your money. The Behringer is a better mixer and half the
price.
What Behringer mixer directly correlates to the Mackie 1402? Same
number
of mic pres, etc.
Not sure. Look in the catalogue or at the website.
For the money you have to spend you could get something bigger in a
Behringer and leave yourself room to expand.
I cannot find in the Beri line anything that directly matches the 1402
when it comes to number of mic pres, size, weight, etc. If I don't need
to expand (I have other consoles) and size is important (I don't like to
carry more than I need when performing) the 1402 looks like a ticket.
I'm going through this right now. My approx. 14-yr. old 1202 is finally
going to wear out. The 1402, which wasn't around when I bought the 1202,
offers just about the right collection of features. I would like to
spend less, yes, but not if it means I have to carry a wallwart or more
weight or size. I'd much prefer the EQ on the Onyx line (this EQ is
outstanding), but again, the Onyx 1620 is much larger than the 1402 and
that might be a deal breaker in this case.
One does not always need to expand, and one sometimes prefers compact
expediency when carrying one's own performing kit. "Something bigger" is
not always desirable.
[/quote]
Looking at the behringer and makie websites, it would seem that the
Behringer Eurorack MX1804X is comparable to the Makie 1402.
Has 2 auxes, 14 channels, 6 mic pres.
On top of that it includes built in FX, A sweepable freq mid EQ, and a 7
band graph.
As to prices, I cannot find any on the mackie site, and I cannot find the
MX1804X on the Behringer site's price list - so I do not know how they
compare, but would be interested for someone who does know to tell me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phildo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:58 pm Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
"John Hall" <john-news3@cambridgetechgroup.com> wrote in message
news:78cc.434d27e7.f88f@mail.cambridgetechgroup.com...
[quote]"Phildo" <Phil@phildo.net> wrote in message
news:3r4lk0Fhq03bU1@individual.net...
Your logic is terminally flawed by your desire to try and humiliate me
the way I do to you several times a day. The big difference here Arny is
that I know my shit while you are just full of it.
You both need to just grow up in my eyes.
[/quote]
Get yourself to an optician then dickwad.
Phildo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in