Thin like Mackie?

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

dale116dot7

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
874
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Here's a question for anyone out there who wants to debate or otherwise question things, or who has looked at these things carefully.

If I look at the schematic of a transformerless mic preamp of, say, a Mackie 1604VLZ, an SSM2019 IC, one of the Soundcraft desks, and the Amek M2500, they are almost the same as each other. The topology is basically identical. Even my (never used any more) Alesis Studio32 board has practically the same mic amp design.

So why the big difference in sound? Is it component selection and matching during assembly? Careful selection of the manufacturers of parts? Magic water sprayed at the mic pres or mix bus amps or whatever? Or does the subtle choice of a current source vs. resistors make a difference?

-Dale
 
Someone (I think Kev?) also mentioned that a hard load on the SSM chips will make them sound bad. If you add an extra buffer stage after the SSM that problem will be solved.

Best regards,

Mikkel C. Simonsen
 
mackie is the indusrty standard right?some(most) might say not.either way mackie along with the the other gear you mention sounds different to each set of ears it is exposed too. so you have the apples and oranges syndrome or baba chom TIMMY!.a design can always be improved on(or not)subject to the listener.any way i'm ramblin mush but i have uncovered something interesting.a well known company back in the 90'ish era took a design straight from an AnologDevices opamp spec sheet and made a pre that was $350 a channel.no real magic to us right,SSM2017(input),TLO71(servo),SSM2142(output) but to someone who knows squat about electronics compares mackie with product B and says $350 a channel sounds better than $350 for 12 channels.may or may not.when compared to shit it is better than a midrange honk fish like Peavey(of course subjective) but either way in the end it all comes down too is your mix/master.client like.you like.all like.
 
[quote author="mcs"]Someone (I think Kev?) also mentioned that a hard load on the SSM chips will make them sound bad. If you add an extra buffer stage after the SSM that problem will be solved.
[/quote]

Would it include the line balancer modules, I think it´s called SSM2142?
 
[quote author="rafafredd"]Would it include the line balancer modules, I think it´s called SSM2142?[/quote]
I don't know. He was talking about the 2017/2019.

Best regards,

Mikkel C. Simonsen
 
SSM2142
http://www.analog.com/en/prod/0%2C2877%2CSSM2142%2C00.html
and



DRV134
http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/drv134.html

these i.c.'s act like an output transformer(theoreticaly).
different combos of caps and resistors can be used on the output pins 1,2 and 7,8.
cheap trick but nice when compared to let's say.....well you know that expensive thing you can't afford.
 
If it's component selection, is it going to be something like 'always use manufacturer XYZ capacitor type ASDF' or something more like 'match R10 to R11 within 0.1%, match C11 to C12 to within 1%, match Q1 to Q2 to within 2mV vbe and beta of 600 +/- 10'?

I was planning on building a few transformerless mic pres and when I started looking at various existing designs I got a bit of an awakening to see that an Amek and a Mackie are almost the same in terms of design.
 
just a note from a daily Mackie preampuser...

They don't sound that bad you know,
a lot of platinum awarded albums is tracked tru their pres.

Don't get me wrong, me too wants more character, dept, etc...
and that's the main reason i started building gear myself, but simply seen as of the shelf gear mackie is not bad at all, their digistuff is something else.

only 0,02 ? :sam:
Tony
 
[quote author="dale116dot7"]Magic water sprayed at the mic pres or mix bus amps or whatever?[/quote] I believe it's C37. :guinness:
 
the mackie's use the njr/njrm chips

Let's thank Beh. they switched to 4580-chips :wink:

But I suppose these will be in the same league. I've had a look at both datasheets, but haven't A/B-ed.

Anybody tried swapping the opamps in his Mackie/Beh.-micpre's
for say 5532/5534 yet ?

(Don't remember which opamp-packages are used in my Mackie MS1202,
should have look. If I remember it correctly space for other/better components was quite sparse)

Peter
 
[quote author="dale116dot7"]I was planning on building a few transformerless mic pres and when I started looking at various existing designs I got a bit of an awakening to see that an Amek and a Mackie are almost the same in terms of design.[/quote]

Those designs are not the same. Perhaps the concept and topologies are similar, but a design is exact down to the last component value. And the cliche is true: The devil is in the details.
You cannot take a glance at a schematics and pronounce the circuit good or bad. We tend to judge too quick because life is easier that way.

I think it is both a particular design AND component selection that make or break the system. And that is a small portion of the battle. The rest is up to marketing for creating preconcieved notions in folks before they even heard what it sounds like.

Tamas
 
My expirience tells me that all transformerless chip op-amps sounds almost same. Even in ssl i found them boring. Always that "plastic" sound You can upgrade with better components and hear some small difference, maybe to go with better PSU and hear maybe more...but real and nice topology i believe is discrete, transformer coupled pre :thumb:
 
This always interests me when it comes up because I have a 1604. I think the last time it came up the verdict was there really is no way to improve on the mackie... without going through a whole whole whole bunch of trouble being the circuit board is one massive panel.

I think alot of people have these boards. there has got to be a way to improve these. I think if we figured out good replacement parts alot of people would be willing to go through the trouble of desoldering and dismantling.

At least I would. So if anyone wants to suggest replacement opamps, caps or design alternatives I'm game for ripping apart my mixer.
 
I dunno, my Alesis Studio32 mic pres sound really crappy, and they have the 'standard' TL mic pre design. I've got a few other TL mic pres around and they all sound different. They are certainly different than my 1290 copy (or any of the other pres in my rack).
 
First, I don't have a Mackie 1604VLZ (I do have some Mackie monitors that I rather like, though). Regarding the Mackie design, I would start looking at a few things:

0. The Mackie will almost certainly be built with SMT parts so you'll want a nice soldering iron to do this work and some practice first... Also, I'm just going to indicate where I'd start to look at. In other words, things that look a bit funny to me.

1. the RF filtering - L48, C315,316,110,79 seem to me like they are actually going to cut into the audio band. In theory a common-mode choke should not affect the audio but really it will. If you're using it on stage, this is probably ok. In the studio I would expect some wierd phasings happening up high which I think would result in a smeared sort of sound. Likely all the caps are ceramics which would be ok for a 10pF or 150 pF stabilization cap but nothing close to the audio band. Even a 150 pF is pushing things for me in a ceramic. Those are close to the audio band.

2. Capacitors C349, C350 (phantom blocking caps) - need some looking at. So does C94 (the output cap).

3. Current sources Q64, Q80, and Q63 - they are a bit wierd. I would look at ditching R483 and replacing it with another DL4148. This should lower the impedance of the current source base node... at the expense of thermal stability of the design. Better yet, look at replacing D80 and R483 with a standard red LED. It has a 1.8 volt drop but the same temperature coefficient as a transistor. You can get an SMT LED to fit where the DL4148 went, and a 0 ohm jumper where R483 went.

4. C383 and C384 seem wierd. They are very large for this circuit. This to me indicates a strange frequency/phase/CMRR response thing may happen. I would expect to not need them. Or maybe a stabilization cap of 150 pF or something like that. But not 0.01uF!!!

5. Q8 and Q24 - I haven't had any experience with the 2SA1084, so I don't know hot it compares to other low-noise transistors. I've had good luck with the BC860's (similar to the BC560's but a SMT version of it). Fortunately, SMT transistors generally have the same pinout so it would be easy to swap. I'm not sure if that would make much of a difference. Matching the gains of the two transistors would probably be helpful. That's a bit hard to do with SMT transistors, though.

6. Last, I would look at the op-amps. U17A and U25A look ok to me, U35A looks a bit strange in terms of capacitor values. I would expect C214 and C237 to need to be different to get a good response. To test this I would probably apply a common-mode square wave (to both pins 2 and 3) and check the response here with a 50 MHz or higher scope.

The datasheet indicates the NJM op-amp should be ok here, but I'd get a handful of different op-amps to try. You can get a lot of audio op-amps in SMT, it's just a pain to swap them. I think I'd wire up a socket temporarily and do my testing with DIP's. When I chose one then I'd solder in the SMT version and re-check it.

Comments?
 
[quote author="bluebird"]This always interests me when it comes up because I have a 1604. I think the last time it came up the verdict was there really is no way to improve on the mackie... without going through a whole whole whole bunch of trouble being the circuit board is one massive panel.

I think alot of people have these boards. there has got to be a way to improve these. I think if we figured out good replacement parts alot of people would be willing to go through the trouble of desoldering and dismantling.

At least I would. So if anyone wants to suggest replacement opamps, caps or design alternatives I'm game for ripping apart my mixer.[/quote]

Have you seen the inside? Its mostly SMT.

I opted to get rid of my 1604 because it is much easier to mod someting older (bigger). I bought another mixer, caps and op amps for less than my 1604 sold for. Much easier to mod, more room gives you more of a choice when it comes to which components you use.
 
Oh, I didn't know about the surface mount design. That might be a little tougher after all.

Dale, I appreciate all the suggestions. I'm not sure about getting into it but I might.

I was doing mic pre tests with my DIY stuff a bit ago and there was a point in the comparison where I couldn't tell the difference between the mackie and some other pres. I know there IS quite a difference but I guess my ears were not up to par at the moment.

So I bet some of your suggestions may put the mackie pre at an acceptable level of performance. Maybe between projects I'll rip it up...

Oh and could you PM me the schemo?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top