Best inexpensive wireless mixer

[John Roberts]

Re: Best inexpensive wireless mixer

In a DJ environment I would have to agree, I have never thought a better pre would make a difference.

Still not sure how a preamp is even necessary for line level playback.

Better crossover or eq, yes... In a live sound environment, I have heard some brittle/wooden pres that I could say were the fault of the pre.

I have been a serious student of mic preamp design for around 40 years.

30 years ago premium preamps were within a couple dB of theoretical noise performance with high linearity relatively inexpensively (transformer-less).

20 years ago cheap preamps were as good as old premium preamps (except for silly cheap install preamps or Karaoke toys)

10 years ago anybody can grab an off the shelf IC that approaches theoretical performance.

In recording, great mics do not sound great without a preamp equal to the task so PRE is VERY improtant.

If you don't clip the preamp, it should be hard to hear any difference. OTOH microphones vary all over the map. You will probably hear more difference from how you physically place the mic in the room wrt to sound sources, than between different preamps.

Of course opinions vary.

JR

 

[Scott Bolt]

Re: Best inexpensive wireless mixer

Still not sure how a preamp is even necessary for line level playback.

I have been a serious student of mic preamp design for around 40 years.

30 years ago premium preamps were within a couple dB of theoretical noise performance with high linearity relatively inexpensively (transformer-less).

20 years ago cheap preamps were as good as old premium preamps (except for silly cheap install preamps or Karaoke toys)

10 years ago anybody can grab an off the shelf IC that approaches theoretical performance.


If you don't clip the preamp, it should be hard to hear any difference. OTOH microphones vary all over the map. You will probably hear more difference from how you physically place the mic in the room wrt to sound sources, than between different preamps.

Of course opinions vary.

JR

John,

While I am an EE, I only started looking at mic preamp designs in the last couple of years in response to threads like this one

Considering all the hoopla being made by the entire industry about "quality preamps" in various mixers, I was surprised by how simple the circuits were. Take for instance the latest hoopla being made about the X32 "MIDAS designed preamps". I have heard the argument that there is no way an X32 has MIDAS preamps, because it would cost too much.

Really?

I looked up the parts in my MixWiz, then looked up some off-the-shelf preamp IC's on DigiKey. The circuit costs almost nothing.

Even the analog circuits (all of which I found used off the shelf audio op amps) were trivial in nature.

Now to the OP's experience.

Yes, my Allen & Heath ZED 10Fx sounds better without any eq or any efx turned on than my old Behringer Eurorack UB1204. No matter how you eq the Behringer, you could always get a nicer sound from the ZED.

I am not sure that I would attribute the sound difference to the pre-amps (although that is possible), but to the entire analog chain of junk between where the XLR cable goes in, and the output goes to the amp/speaker.

In the case of the modern digital mixers, I am quite certain that you can hear the difference between them; however, the difference is not likely the pre's or even the A/D or D/A converters, but rather the quality of the processing in the digital portion of the mixer.

If you are simply amplifying the output of an iPod, any of the current wireless mixers will do the trick nicely I would think. There should be very little processing needed.

Since the DL1608 is currently the least expensive of the bunch, that would be my pick (for now ).

Now FOH speakers ...... those will make a difference on how your iPod sounds through ANY mixer

 

[John Roberts]

Re: Best inexpensive wireless mixer

John,

While I am an EE, I only started looking at mic preamp designs in the last couple of years in response to threads like this one

These days it's a cook book app-note exercise... Back in the day we had to dial in the current density of discrete parts to optimize noise figure for mic source impedance etc.

Considering all the hoopla being made by the entire industry about "quality preamps" in various mixers, I was surprised by how simple the circuits were. Take for instance the latest hoopla being made about the X32 "MIDAS designed preamps". I have heard the argument that there is no way an X32 has MIDAS preamps, because it would cost too much.

The hoopla is not made by the whole industry but by marketing pukes trying to differentiate between otherwise similar products. Throw enough money at a big lie and any number of people buy the blarney. Consumers after being sold on the conceit repeat it to justify purchase decisions and pride of ownership.

Really?

really...

I looked up the parts in my MixWiz, then looked up some off-the-shelf preamp IC's on DigiKey. The circuit costs almost nothing.

not nothing...

Even the analog circuits (all of which I found used off the shelf audio op amps) were trivial in nature.

You need to understand mixer math... an X$ preamp is X dollars times 24 or 32.

Even Mackie a skillful and successful marketer, hyped up the imaginary R & D investment to develop their pre, not the preamp parts cost.

Now to the OP's experience.

Yes, my Allen & Heath ZED 10Fx sounds better without any eq or any efx turned on than my old Behringer Eurorack UB1204. No matter how you eq the Behringer, you could always get a nicer sound from the ZED.

I never argue with people about what they hear or think they hear.

I am not sure that I would attribute the sound difference to the pre-amps (although that is possible), but to the entire analog chain of junk between where the XLR cable goes in, and the output goes to the amp/speaker.

The rest of the chain is even easier than the mic pre, except maybe a bus amp with lots of stems.

I suspect people hear EQ voicing, gain structure (some mixers do not have comprehensive clip detection), and who knows what. Modern ICs even very cheap ones are pretty good.

In the case of the modern digital mixers, I am quite certain that you can hear the difference between them; however, the difference is not likely the pre's or even the A/D or D/A converters, but rather the quality of the processing in the digital portion of the mixer.

I write some software, generally digital path stuff works or doesn't, not as much gray area as analog design. One exception is some early cheap digital software recording environments, running on inadequate processor power. Some sample rate conversion algorithms and data crunching may cut corners to work on marginal platforms.

If you are simply amplifying the output of an iPod, any of the current wireless mixers will do the trick nicely I would think. There should be very little processing needed.

Since the DL1608 is currently the least expensive of the bunch, that would be my pick (for now ).

Now FOH speakers ...... those will make a difference on how your iPod sounds through ANY mixer

We concur... speakers matter...

JR