anyone compared Mackie ProFx 12 with Allen and Heath Zed10fx

brokenpretzel · #1 03-22-2012, 04:26 PM

i know there is a lot of love here for the Zed. The Mackie has two more mic inputs and more inserts and 1/4 inch out and xlr out. i want to use it as a mixer for live, including the effects, and use the usb for recording into logic sometimes and live want to make it easy to use aux out or ? for looping chain.

Has anyone compared the preamps? the eq? the quality of the effects? the usb functionality and the use of aux out?

i am aware that there has been a noise issue at least in the past with the Mackie and usb and that there are high impedance inputs for guitar on the Zed though my acoustic 7 string guitar signal goes through a whole pedalboard before it will ever hit these
www.roberttemplemusic.com
www.youtube.com/brokenpretzel

funeralsinger · #2 03-22-2012, 08:43 PM

I have not used the small A & H desks, but the entry-level Mackie offerings in the last decade or so are, in my opinion, garbage. Frankly, almost everything in that price range is cheaply made in every respect, and it shows in performance and reliability. The dubious name "ProFX" suggests that at least the on board effects should be decent, but they're awful...grainy, rough, smeared. I have owned several good Mackie products in the last 20 years, but the ProFX is far from good sounding, particularly the effects.

More proof that you do indeed get what you pay for.

I ended up trying, and then buying a Presonus 16.0.2 to use for my trio gig mixer, and computer audio interface. Quite a bit more expensive, but...see statement above...

I hope you find something that works for you.

J

brokenpretzel · #3 03-22-2012, 09:39 PM

thanks for that. i have been leaning towards the Zed.
i forgot to mention that i tried out an Alesis multi mix and a Behringer 1204fx.
i didn't like the preamps or effects on the Alesis and i thought the preamps on the Behringer were decent, didn't love the effects and the meter seems to be an issue on those

kramster · #4 03-23-2012, 06:38 AM

A&H ZED 10 Fx is good stuff..I like it better my Mackie, Yamaha, and Alesis mixers...

lschwart · #5 03-23-2012, 07:04 AM

I'm another happy user of the ZED10FX, but I don't use it for recording (at least not yet), so I can't comment on that. And I've never used the Mackie.

I will say this, however: if you have a little more money, don't need the mixer to be a compact as possible, and you think that more inputs, channel inserts, and channel mutes might be useful to you, you might want to stretch a bit for one of the bigger ZEDs (the 12FX or even the 16FX). I did need something compact, so I got the 10FX, but I've had more than one occasion to wish I had inserts, mutes, and a few more mic inputs!

Louis

joeybcdt · #6 03-23-2012, 01:36 PM

I have the Zed 12fx that we use for acoustic gigs. Considering it's a $400 mixer I'd give it an A+. I also have a A&H Mixwiz that we've used for full band gigs for the last 9 years. I'm a fan of A&H.

Mackie seams to have harmed their reputation with poor customer service.

Joey

mutantrock · #7 03-24-2012, 11:58 AM

The effects are not very good on either one. Useable is about all I can say for them. The overall sound quality is good on each mixer. I like the ZED EQ section better. Overall, selecting a mixer that has the right routing, monitoring, inserts and number of inputs/outputs are the most important factors on these low cost mixers.

alohachris · #8 03-24-2012, 12:26 PM

Aloha Brokenpretzel,

Like many giggers, when Mackie came out with the VLZ Pro series in the early 90's, live amplification for voice & acoustic guitar became a whole new & better ballgame for me. Finally, we had decent & portable mixers that didn't take up much precious stage space & had features I needed @ an affordable price. Pretty quiet too.

However, I always thought that Mackie preamps in the VLZ Pro series sounded compressed & the control provided by their EQ was less than desireable. In fact, I added an external 1/3" octave Rane SEQ 30L unit to a DFX-6 Mackie board I was using in the late 90's for better control in the wide variety of rooms I played. It worked & was very portable.

I try out lots of live gear every year. For about six years now, I have liked the A&H ZED Series among the under-$500, small, portable live mixers. Superior, sweepable mid EQ - just what you need for gigging. And pretty good mic preamps.

However, the small ZED FX10 does lack MUTE switches - a convenience hassle in some live situations & definitely a drag for home recording. The A&H ZED 12's or higher have MUTES, but are larger.

Soundcraft has long held a great reputation for very high-quality desks - especially their high-end live mixers. Soundcraft's EFX & MFXi Series are their answer to the A&H ZED's among the cheaper mixers. Soundcraft quality is slightly better than the ZED's, IMO.

I own a Soundcraft MFXi-8 (slightly better quality & more features than the EFX's, tons better than the Mackie ProFX's), but rarely use it unless I need more inputs for other players sitting in beyond that provided by my SPS-1:

The MFXi-8:
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MFXi8/

The EFX-8:
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/pro-a...30344000000000

The newish Yamaha MG124CX mixer is pretty good also in the under $500 price range.

I agree with Mutantrock (as I often do) about the poor quality of FX in most of the cheaper small mixers (which is why I like the 24-bit Lexicon FX of the Soundcraft mixers). Most are useable, if you just want to add a little reverb or a tad of delay. But if your live mix is FX-heavy, then use quality outboard FX or a really great live FX unit like a TC M-2000. Poor FX will further compress your live sound. And many of the cheap stomp box FX will add plenty of noise in a series to your live signal chain.

So A&H ZED's, Soundcraft MFXi's & EFX's & the Yamaha MG's are the three brands/series of mixers offering better sound, features, & control than the Mackie ProFX Series in the under $500 range. The others (like Behringer) are pretty pathetic in the EQ & preamp departments, IMO.

The ZED's are winners. But the Soundcraft EFX & MFXi's are better. Both the ZED & Soundcraft preamps & EQ are still far superior to the current Mackie ProFX Series of mixers to my ears.

alohachris

brokenpretzel · #9 03-24-2012, 07:16 PM

i decided to get the Zed 10fx. first thoughts are that preamps sound good, effects not bad, some funny routing things i haven't mastered yet.
maybe someone who has this can help.
i am routing voice and guitar and stomp box out the aux out to the looper. level seems pretty low. have to have master aux out all the way up and individual aux knobs to about 3 o clock to get enuf level to sound like something at looper.
there may be a better way but i'm not sure.
don't really understand the listen and record buttons too well yet

bobcalvanese · #10 03-24-2012, 07:33 PM

I've had both, and the ZED10FX is better.

But, if you have a little more money, go for the ZED12FX. The preamps are better than the 10FX, and it has way more options than the 10FX does.

I wound up returning the 10FX and getting the 12FX, and I still have it.

Mr Blues · #11 03-25-2012, 07:29 PM

I use to have the mackie pro FX and took it back, I wasn't impressed.

I do love the mackie 1202 VLZ3, the VLZ range comapcts mixers are very good. Lots of good headroom

The A & H are also good.

dave

brokenpretzel · #12 03-25-2012, 07:33 PM

ok after a second day of checking out the zed 10fx i am definitely underwhelmed by the effects. that is disappointing. i am tempted by Alohachris to try out the soundcraft efx 8 which is bigger but still not too imposing. i like that it has 8 mic preamps and am a fan of lexicon effects.
hoping that it will making interfacing with my looper easier too.
stay tuned for more