how do you think of micpre from mbox campairing to mcki vlz?

[year3765]

i personally couldn't identify the difference after listing back to stereo track.
the test was performed with same mics(nt5) and same source(voice and acoustic guitar).
i was expecting mbox to be clearer and more transparent specially in the middle, but as an amature engineer i couldn't tell.
does anyone have any opinion on this?
also in this test i've used mbox as preamp only using multiface as a soundcard and converter.

[pcm]

There is zero doubt in my mind that the mackie vlz preamp is several magnatudes better that the mbox preamps. With a hi-fi source and proper monitoring, it would be obvious. Try micing a kick drum and that should be pretty obvious. The Mackie pres had transients way better in that instance.

[year3765]

thanks for your opinion.
because of my home studio environment, i don't think i can record bass drum.
what do you think about middle area?
like voice or acoustic guitar or even as di for elec guitar?
i've noticed that i could come up with more gain with mackie than mbox, but i'm not sure if mackie has that much transparency in the middle frequency.

[BradLyons]

There is no comparison between the two pres. Although the original Mbox has pres by "Focusrite", they are very basic pres with only 40dB of gain. The pres on the VLZ and the VLZPro are, withouth question, many times better.

[jaffi]

The VLZs always sounded a little muffled in the low to mid area (the onyx is a definate inprovement). But, the M-box is mostly a beginner interface. The VLZ has been used in so many recordings over the years that it is just obvious that it is good. I pick the VLZ over the M-box.

[year3765]

thank you very much for inputs.
i will do more recordings (maybe with higher gain), and see if i can hear better.