Anyone have experience with these? They say on gearslutz that the built-in effects of these mixers are generally far worse than individual effects processors.

I was thinking of getting the Mackie Profx12 to replace my Mackie 1202-VLZ, mainly because there are an additional 4 gain knobs for the rest of the channels, so I'm guessing I can further distort individual instruments, which I can't do with channels 5-12 with the VLZ. This would also not necessitate buying a 14 or 16-channel mixer, I thought.

I'm also wondering about the actual built-in fx, because when I had a Soundcraft Digital 328 mixer with built-in fx, they weren't so bad. I understand a good digital fx processor would likely be better, but has anyone used the Mackie Profx12, in particular?

Have you considered say the rme ucx ufx line ? Do you actually need physical faders?

Unless you are tracking or doing live work, I dont really see the point. They tend to be very transparent adding nothing in terms of character as they are all digital algorithms until you start spending a lot. They are there for basic tracking mixing.

___________________
"This is why Superman works alone." GC
old stuff from days gone by (2001-2004)
Mad For Brad's gay little contest

quote:

Originally posted by Looney4Clooney Have you considered say the rme ucx ufx line ? Do you actually need physical faders?

No experience with built-in fx mixers except with the Soundcraft I mentioned, which I rather liked. Although I also owned a Digitech 400, which was rather nice. I would definitely like a 12-channel mixer with more than just 4 gain knobs - so I can distort more than 4 individual instruments/machines. I don't need faders at all, it's only for production purposes.

quote:

Unless you are tracking or doing live work, I dont really see the point. They tend to be very transparent adding nothing in terms of character as they are all digital algorithms until you start spending a lot. They are there for basic tracking mixing.

So basically a fx processor is a much better bet, you think? What do you mean by tracking?

One caveat regarding Richie's advice - he has an irrational fear of faders, especially automated ones.

That means ignore the bit that they are only useful for tracking or live - they happen to be beautiful for mixing.

He is right though on the other stuff; Digital is the way to go if you really want good FX. Sure when you start spending a small fortune on a desk with built in FX (like Harrison or Euphonix consoles) then the FX is great, but otherwise you're better off going digital for FX.

If you want to do traditional engineering FX, like desk mashing or gain distortion, they sure you'll need a physical mixer and honestly anything cheap like a soundcraft or mackie will be fine, but again, you can achive both of these effects with plugs these days.

Oh and tracking refers to recording real instruments or mics.

Cheers. Might get a Digitech again, it was pretty good and had 4 ins and outs. Now i'm basically wondering if it's still worth getting the Mackie Profx12 for the extra gain knobs. I don't use a computer, so perhaps it's a good replacement for the Mackie 1202 VLZ, which has only 4 gain knobs. I'm guessing some of the fx couldn't hurt either, if I need anything extra for additional instruments. If I recall, the delay and flanger, for instance, wasn't so bad on the Soundcraft 328, and given Mackie's good reputation, how bad can it be?

I had mackie Profx12 and the effects were a nice addition. For the price difference, I think it's worth getting it. They sound fairly clean, especially reverbs and delays but you won't get that much manipulation. You might also consider Roland vm3100, which is all digital and it sounds much cleaner and editing goes deep. The mackie is much easier to use, but roland sounds much cleaner, although it will take you more time to master it. I think Yamaha also made a similar mixer that Roland did, you might consider that, too.