Mackie 1202 VLZ4 vs Allen & Heath Zed 10

[c_h_music]

Hi folks, I'd appreciate recommendations on a new mixer, I've narrowed it down to these two, both of which are around £260, and both of which do what I need in terms of channels & features: Mackie 1202 VLZ4 vs Allen & Heath Zed 10

What's making the final decision difficult:

- 1202 VLZ4 has more channels, and ALT bus and appears to have more configuration options for output - none of which I need now, but I can def imagine needing at some point in the future. BUT I've heard very bad stories about the VLZ4 incl many posts on the internet referring to a significant known balance problem that affects all the units, apparently the left output on ALL channels is 1.7db lower than the right (but if it's that bad, and consistent across all units, I'm puzzled why so many people give it high marks)

- the Zed 10 sounds like it is a higher quality unit in terms of build and components, but it's also larger and much heavier, which is not ideal for desk space and lugging around. More EQ options but fewer SEND configurations (as far as I can tell – its interface is a bit more confusing than the Mackie). Also I'm puzzled why a search of the forum return zero results for either Zed 10 or Zed – does nobody use these units?

Advice appreciated.

[Hugh Robjohns]

The reported channel imbalance on the Mackie is weird and sounds like a manufacturing production error. I'm surprised it wasn't picked up in QC at the factory. If it only affects the 1202 then maybe, given your future expectation of greeter needs, it would be more sensible to consider a different, more capable sibling model.

Personally, I'd lean towards the A&H because I think they are better designed and built. All mixers at this cost level are built down to the price, but I think A&H do that less than some of the others.

[Wonks]

Not sure why your forum search returned nothing. Here's my quick search on zed and I get 17 pages of hits. They are certainly used quite a lot and often recommended as an upgrade mixer from Behringer-level ones.

https://www.soundonsound.com/forum/sear ... mit=Search

[c_h_music]

@Hugh it sounds like it's a known issue that has always affected much of the VLZ4 line, in particular confirmed on the 1202, 1402 and 802. Here's a discussion incl one poster who took it all apart and found it's a design flaw in the channel chip, and a response from Mackie that it's known and not something they plan to fix: https://gearspace.com/board/geekzone/13 ... lance.html and another here: https://modwiggler.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=254559 the fact that it seems so widely known made me wonder whether real-world usage is just not affected for most people. is 2db difference in left channel not something most ears would pick up?

@Wonks thanks, so weird, I'm now getting lots of results, def got zero earlier! thanks.

By the way, one other thing that possibly counts again the Zed is that if I understand correctly the TRS inputs are not actually balanced inputs, does anyone know more about this?

[Wonks]

I've found the search feature can be a bit hit or miss with the forum software used. Sometimes you get nothing, then refresh the page and you get lots. Better than it has been, but still not perfect.

[Hugh Robjohns]

@Hugh it sounds like it's a known issue that has always affected much of the VLZ4 line...

I was shocked to read the Mackie response quoted in the GS thread. A 0.5dB mismatch would be tolerable in a product of this type, but to shrug off a 1.7dB error as normal and acceptable is astonishing.

...is 2db difference in left channel not something most ears would pick up?

To typical users of this level of product, no, I suspect not.

That kind of offset would be obvious with audio programme on any decent metering system, of course (eg, twin AB/MS meters, Box, vectorscope, etc) and with steady test tones on all metering systems.

But a 2dB offset moves the centre image only about 1/8th of the way across the image. You'd need good monitors in a good room, and to be listening in the exact centre listening position to hear that reliably on a typical mix.

By the way, one other thing that possibly counts again the Zed is that if I understand correctly the TRS inputs are not actually balanced inputs, does anyone know more about this?

It's detailed in the manual and shown in the block diagram. The line inputs on the first two mic/line channels are balanced. The high-z inputs on the other mic/inst channels are unbalanced. The stereo line inputs are unbalanced.

Whether this cost-saving decision matters in practice depends on what you plan to connect to the stereo channels. Most likely users would be connecting unbalanced sources like keyboards or DJ setups etc, so being balanced probably wouldn't offer any practical advantage.

[Sam Spoons]

By the way, one other thing that possibly counts again the Zed is that if I understand correctly the TRS inputs are not actually balanced inputs, does anyone know more about this?

The block diagram in the manual for the Zed 10 clearly shows the line inputs on the mono channels are differential balanced and the ST channel jack inputs are impedance balanced* (though, obviously, the phono/RCA inputs are not).

The exception is the 'playback inputs' between the ST2 jacks and the USB input which are unbalanced.

edited on reading Hugh's post :- The stereo channel inputs show what I assume to be a resistor between the ring and ground, am I wrong to assume that signifies an 'impedance balanced' input?

https://www.allen-heath.com/media/AP788 ... ide_A5.pdf

[Hugh Robjohns]

edited on reading Hugh's post :- The stereo channel inputs show what I assume to be a resistor between the ring and ground, am I wrong to assume that signifies an 'impedance balanced' input?

There's no such thing as an impedance-balanced input, Sam.

The impedance-balanced output uses a resistor in the cold leg to mimic the equal impedances to ground at both hot and cold legs of the source which is a requirement of a balanced source and essential in ensuring external interference manifests as a common-mode signal.

A balanced input always requires a differential receiver (either a transformer or an active input stage), the function of which is to detect and pass differential signals applied between the two hot and cold legs, and reject common mode signals.

The first two Zed10 mic/line channels show exactly this arrangement. But the stereo channels show only the hot (tip) connection feeding an unbalanced input stage. There is clearly no differential input here, and so there can be no rejection of common mode signals. It is an unbalanced input, plain and simple.

The resistor on the cold (ring) connection is simply there as a courtesy to provide a suitable load for an active symmetrical-balanced output (to minimise any risk of output distortion), and/or to properly unbalance a transformer-balanced output.

If the ring was left open-circuit a transformer-balanced output wouldn't work at all (the cold side of the secondary wouldn't be connected to anything, so there is no circuit!).

And if the ring was grounded directly it could cause the cold side driver of an active symmetrical-balanced output to become overloaded, potentially introducing distortion into the hot side via the local power supply.

In either case, if a balanced source is connected to the zed10 stereo inputs, its input arrangement forces that source to operate as an unbalanced source.

[ajay_m]

What a strange fault. It can't be opamp gain mismatch because the open loop gain of a standard opamp is typically 100K+ and negative feedback means that any difference between two channels would be entirely compensated for, even if, say, one channel had twice the open loop gain of the other. It's not clear what exactly the custom Mackie chips are.

What is clear is that the company response has been entirely unacceptable. To continue to sell a product with a known design fault like this really does feel like the sort of thing another company we all love to kick might do, and yet - cheap and cheerful though they are, that company's mixers do, more or less, do what they say on the tin. [I've owned more than one over the years. They were surprisingly well-built when you opened them up and other than having to spray the switches and sockets every now and again with contact cleaner, never gave any problems]

You might wonder if it isn't worth just whipping out the credit card and purchasing an A&H CQ12T (which I think has enough I/O if I read your post correctly).

I do get it is a multiple of your budget but it is very small and light, has very few things to go wrong, being digital, and will undoubtedly have exemplary preamps and overall performance. Years from now that extra cost will be forgotten and the little thing will probably still be working perfectly. Being able to set up a scene with everything EQ'd and the effects just the way you want and then instantly recall it will bring a smile to your face.

I spent a heck of a lot more than that again on a new mixer recently and, yes, I woke up the next day and thought "what have I done" but I also know that it'll undoubtedly outlast me in terms of reliability and so sometimes it's better to buy what you really need and not necessarily what you can afford. Cheap mixers are full of cheap sockets, cheap pots and cheap cabling, not to mention cheap boards with dubious copper thickness and quality. This tends not to end well, especially in any semi-hostile environment.
Fortunately the ghastly days of coming home from a gig and literally having to wipe the tar off my cabling have long gone, mind you. That really was horrible, especially as a non-smoker.

[Hugh Robjohns]

It's not clear what exactly the custom Mackie chips are.

I read a suggestion that the Mackie Onyx chips used in the preamps are a form of OTA.

... sometimes it's better to buy what you really need and not necessarily what you can afford. Cheap mixers are full of cheap sockets, cheap pots and cheap cabling, not to mention cheap boards with dubious copper thickness and quality. This tends not to end well...

Totally agree.

Fortunately the ghastly days of coming home from a gig and literally having to wipe the tar off my cabling have long gone...

I still recoil at the post-gig de-rigs during my student days running the college PA gear. We had to wipe off much nastier substances than tar, especially after Legalise Cannabis gigs!

[Sam Spoons]

edited on reading Hugh's post :- The stereo channel inputs show what I assume to be a resistor between the ring and ground, am I wrong to assume that signifies an 'impedance balanced' input?

There's no such thing as an impedance-balanced input, Sam.

The impedance-balanced output uses a resistor in the cold leg to mimic the equal impedances to ground at both hot and cold legs of the source which is a requirement of a balanced source and essential in ensuring external interference manifests as a common-mode signal.

Thanks Hugh, I knew that really but, for some reason, got it wrong. Call it a senior moment

[resistorman]

My hands on experience with the new Mackie 1202 has not been good, the build quality is poor and the sound is mediocre. I'd go for A&H any day, or even a Behringer before I'd buy a Mackie... too bad, they used to be decent quality for the money.

[sonics]

I'd be interested to hear why you discounted the rivals like Behringer, Midas, Yamaha etc. Of the two mentioned, I prefer the A&H. I've just never been impressed with the Mackies. I'd rather use my old Behringer!

[S2]

Hi

I have the A&H Zed 12fx, not the Zed 10 so I can't comment specifically. However I'm very impressed with it, it's very quiet, seems robust and well built. I've had it 10+ years I think. Personally of both the mixers you mention I wouldn't entertain either of them simply because they don't have faders, only rotary knobs which makes it quite hard (for me at least) to see where they are at a darkened gig. (I only use it for live work).

Also I don't think they don't have any eFX either which would mean an extra effects unit and commensurate wiring which I don't particularly want. YMMV though.

But I recommend A&H in whatever guise you plan on getting.

[Arpangel]

I’ve got an A&H MixWiz 14-4-2, and it’s a bit of "professional kit" in every way, I can’t say that about Behringer, maybe a bit about Mackie, but both aren’t in the same class as A&H.

[Hugh Robjohns]

The mixwiz is a far more capable and upmarket desk than the zed, so direct comparisons aren't entirely valid... but I think the consensus remains fairly canted towards the little A&H, especially given the alleged issues and corporate acceptance over the small Mackie.

[Arpangel]

PS I have a 1202 VLZ4 and I’ve not had any issues with balance on channels, all seems fine.
Maybe that only affected some production runs.

[Sam Spoons]

IIRC a Mackie VLZ of some flavour featured in the SoS Mic Preamp Shootout some years ago and didn't do too shabbily...

[Arpangel]

IIRC a Mackie VLZ of some flavour featured in the SoS Mic Preamp Shootout some years ago and didn't do too shabbily...

They are fine, but compared to a good well built stand alone mic amp, you do notice the difference, especially gain, noise, headroom. But the sound is more than adequate, to my ears anyway. And Mackies pop up in all sorts of high profile rigs,
.

[tea for two]

larger and much heavier, which is not ideal for desk space and lugging around.

I had a battery operated behringer 1002B mixer aboot a decade earlier. Even though I wouldn't select a behringer nowadays, I'd select Allen & Heath, for lugging around this 1002B could suit you.

[c_h_music]

Thanks everyone really appreciate the suggestions. Definitely in the A&H camp now, but I wonder does anyone know difference in performance between the Zed 10 and the Zedi 10? Primary difference seems to be the Zed has sweepable mid-EQs, but only 2 channels at 48khz on USB, whereas the Zedi has 4 channels and up to 96khz, but more restrictive EQs. Would probable go for the sweepable mids except the Zedi is newer model, a tad cheaper, and sounds longer term more useful to me – but is it otherwise basically the same audio componentry inside does anyone know?

[Hugh Robjohns]

IIRC a Mackie VLZ of some flavour featured in the SoS Mic Preamp Shootout some years ago and didn't do too shabbily...

It was my 1402 VLZpro, a second VLZ generation model dating from the late 90s.

The preamps in that are remarkably good, still, in terms of noise, distortion and headroom The 60dB gain range is plenty for most purposes too.

The main weakness in that particular model is a reduced headroom at high frequencies through the mix bus, but if you operate with slightly depressed output levels it performs quite decently.

[Wonks]

The ZEDi text mentions a new preamp design, so along with the 4 channel recording feature, I’d expect a fair percentage of it is new electronics.

I expect the EQ section is the same as older designs, and probably most of the output circuitry.

[Wonks]

What will be the main purpose of the mixer, and what will you be connecting to it?

[Sam Spoons]

IIRC a Mackie VLZ of some flavour featured in the SoS Mic Preamp Shootout some years ago and didn't do too shabbily...

It was my 1402 VLZpro, a second VLZ generation model dating from the late 90s.

I still have a '90's 1202 VLZPro as a backup that goes in the car to every gig*

* Not that I gig much these days...