Behringer Upgrade?

[SonicAlbert]

The best low cost compressor is the RNC or RNLA, made by a company called FMR.

There's a lot of opinions being thrown around in this thread, and I'm virtually certain that some of these folks haven't actually used all of the gear that they are talking about. Like has anyone actually A/B'ed a Behringer and Soundcraft M series mixer side by side? Or even used both?

Then there's the advertising copy type comments like: the DMP3 competes with preamps four times the price. There are some darn good preamps in the $400-700 range, so that's a pretty big statement. It may be true, but then again I think it best to take it with a grain of salt. When you get into the $400-700 area you are including preamps like the Groove Tubes Brick, FMR RNP, and DAV Electronics BG-1, to name just a few examples.

The big improvement when going through a DMP3 directly into your soundcard is that you will be bypassing all the crappy cheap electronics in the Behringer mixer. You'll still be using the cheap electronics of a budget preamp, but there will be less of it in the way. That will be an improvement.

 

[tdukex]

SonicAlbert, some of your comments are condescending and untrue.

There's a lot of opinions being thrown around in this thread, and I'm virtually certain that some of these folks haven't actually used all of the gear that they are talking about...

I agree. For example, you haven't used the DMP3 or compared it to other pres, which makes your following statements rather erroneous:

Then there's the advertising copy type comments like: the DMP3 competes with preamps four times the price...

Like you should talk about ad-copy SonicAlbert. Aren't you the one always advertising the DAV as sounding as good as preamps costing $1,000 per channel--and then defending your comments against all objectors as if you owned stock in the company.

There are some darn good preamps in the $400-700 range, so that's a pretty big statement. It may be true, but then again I think it best to take it with a grain of salt. When you get into the $400-700 area you are including preamps like the Groove Tubes Brick, FMR RNP, and DAV Electronics BG-1, to name just a few examples...

So you are pretty much saying that although I compared the the DMP3 to a $600 Meek and a $1,400 Sebatron I don't know what I am talking about, but you, who have never used the DMP3 or compared it against anything, does know what he's talking about.

The Brick? Gimme a break. I've heard clips of this box, and at least for acoustic guitar, which I use the DMP3 for, the Brick loses.

Oh, and BTW, when the RNP first came out a member on this Board did a direct shootout between it and the DMP3 on acoustic guitar. A lot of members voted and a lot of members had red faces when the preamps were revealed and most had picked the DMP3.

None of this makes the DMP3 as good an overall preamp as the RNP or the Grace 101, or whatever. And if somebody wants follow your suggestion and take my opinion with a "grain of salt" thats ok. If they are wise, they will most certainly take your opinion with a grain of salt as well.

Because we all know about opinions, don't we.

 

[zed32]

Well, I haven't used a DMP3 so I'm not going to offer up any comments about it. However, I have used a Behringer mixer and a Shure SM58. The preamps are not very good. The EQ section is not very good either. The SM58 isn't going to bring out the best in that mixer anyway. Instead of cross-grading to another budget mixer, invest in a better microphone. I don't care what lunatic pop star supposedly used the SM58 to record their vocals (which I'm sure they didn't), it's simply not a very good microphone for recording, especially when acoustic guitar is involved. So instead of buying a new mixer every year, just get one decent microphone that will remain useable over the years for your recordings. That way you're not essentially buying the same thing twice. I'd suggest, in your case, investing in a decent small-diaphragm condenser microphone for the acoustic guitar. The SM58 could still be useable for vocals.

 

[jonnyc]

Well, I haven't used a DMP3 so I'm not going to offer up any comments about it. However, I have used a Behringer mixer and a Shure SM58. The preamps are not very good. The EQ section is not very good either. The SM58 isn't going to bring out the best in that mixer anyway. Instead of cross-grading to another budget mixer, invest in a better microphone. I don't care what lunatic pop star supposedly used the SM58 to record their vocals (which I'm sure they didn't), it's simply not a very good microphone for recording, especially when acoustic guitar is involved. So instead of buying a new mixer every year, just get one decent microphone that will remain useable over the years for your recordings. That way you're not essentially buying the same thing twice. I'd suggest, in your case, investing in a decent small-diaphragm condenser microphone for the acoustic guitar. The SM58 could still be useable for vocals.

Sorry, but I'm gonna have to disagree with your assesment of the 58. While it might not be the best on every source it certainly is useable, very useable in fact. Also, you have no clue who did or didn't use it to record vocals with, or anything else for that matter. I do agree though that buying a bunch of different cheap pre's isn't wise. The best suggestion is, save your money buy a good quality mic and a good preamp.

 

[zed32]

Sorry, my post was not meant as a bashing of the SM58. Let's be realistic, I still wouldn't call it a "very good" microphone for vocal recording. What I meant by that is that in MOST situations, there's probably going to be a tool better suited for the job than the SM58 in any good mic locker. I even suggested that the guy keep his SM58 for vocals! It's definitely a microphone that one should never have to get rid of, because there's always going to be a time when it's going to come in handy. I don't recall, at any point in this thread, saying that the SM58 was not a useable mic. For his purposes though, wouldn't you agree that upgrading the SM58 would be a wiser choice at this point than buying a Souncraft M-Series board? Also, you're right, I don't know who did or didn't use the SM58 to record their vocals (except the singer from Unearth, who I've seen on video using the SM58 in the studio, although I wouldn't exactly call it singing!). I just find it hard to believe that U2's vocals were all recorded with a SM58. Sounds more like urban legend to me, but then again what do I know?

 

[jonnyc]

Your exact words were, "it's simply not a very good microphone for recording." To me that's like saying a mic isn't very useable.

Just took a little trip over to gearslutz. Dave Meegan confirms that all vocals(minus one song) were cut with an sm58 on the Joshua Tree album.

 

[zed32]

Sorry for that then. What I meant was that it's not VERY GOOD. As in, it's good, but not very good. I probably should have worded it more like "it's simply not a great microphone for recording." Kind of confusing the way I put it, but certainly wasn't my intention to put down the mighty SM58. I am actually a fan of the SM57 and SM58. Honestly I just don't find myself reaching for the SM58 right away when it comes time to track acoustic guitar and vocal.

 

[omtayslick]

SonicAlbert, some of your comments are condescending and untrue.

I have enjoyed and benefitted from reading SonicAlbert's posts in the past, but I've got to say I agree with tdukex on this one.

I suggested that the OP get an SM81 and a DMP3. Or if the functionality of a mixer is required consider a Mackie Onyx. And I told him to save his money and use the 58 for vocals, especially if he is recording in an untreated space. I took into account his stated goals and the attributes of the Behringer mixer and the Soundcraft M series. I have used all of these pieces of gear.

Here's how I arrived at these recommendations: The DMP3 that I chose to replace my Behringer mixer sounds better than the Behringer. A lot better. The SM81 recommendation should speak for itself. He will get OK results close micing an acoustic guitar in an untreated environment. But it's not as easy to get good vocals in that environment. So, keep the 58. The Soundcraft sounds ok, the Onyx sounds better, so if the functionality of a mixer is required consider getting the Onyx. If a mixer is not required, he can get a 2 channel pre, and a solid, proven, studio workhorse mic for less than the cost of the mixer. (end of Ad copy)

 

[jonnyc]

Sorry for that then. What I meant was that it's not VERY GOOD. As in, it's good, but not very good. I probably should have worded it more like "it's simply not a great microphone for recording." Kind of confusing the way I put it, but certainly wasn't my intention to put down the mighty SM58. I am actually a fan of the SM57 and SM58. Honestly I just don't find myself reaching for the SM58 right away when it comes time to track acoustic guitar and vocal.

I wouldn't even go so far as to say it isn't great. It's not great on every source, I'd definately agree however there are probably a few vocalists out there that sound absolutely stellar through that mic. In fact I record a little pop/punk band and the singer sounds worlds better through an sm57 than my gt57, bluebird or tlm103. Just kind of depends on the sound the mic's picking up, you know?

 

[zed32]

I wouldn't even go so far as to say it isn't great. It's not great on every source, I'd definately agree however there are probably a few vocalists out there that sound absolutely stellar through that mic. In fact I record a little pop/punk band and the singer sounds worlds better through an sm57 than my gt57, bluebird or tlm103. Just kind of depends on the sound the mic's picking up, you know?

Yeah, I've been waiting for that sort of thing to happen to me, and it just hasn't yet! I know it goes on all the time, people get frustrated, not able to find "that sound" they're looking for, trying every big dollar mic in the locker only to find that the SM58 was the answer all along. I know I've used the SM57 quite often for doing background vocals and layering with great results. Just haven't run into the person who sounds great with the lead vocal recorded through the 57/58 yet. I've had other hand-held dynamics step up to the plate, though. Keeping with the spirit of the original post, I stand by my statement that he can do much better for acoustic guitar than a SM58 in most cases.

 

[talontsiawd]

This is my personal experience from going from a beringer ub802 to a yamaha mg12/4. First, the preamps were slightly cleaner. I wouldn't say it was a great upgrade by any means, but a noticeable one. The behringer ones were just more noisy in gerneral, well the mixer was. So when recording vocals, the difference was pretty negligable. BUT, when recording other sources, like some sound modual and my sampler i used to own, it made a worthwhile difference because i needed that noise gone.

I found it to be the same with monitering. My yamaha makes about as much noise with a fader all the way up and the gain about half as my berhinger just turned on. So again, improvement. It doesn't sound noticeably "better" just much quiter which i think is worth while as well in terms of an upgrade.

Then, of course, there are alot more features, outs, etc, that my behringer didn't have but i don't know if a comprable sized behringer would have have the same. Or if a smaller yamaha would be more limiting....etc.

Lastly, i have no issues with my yamaha, this is actually what made me get a new mixer. My left main out would just go out on my behringer. Sometimes it would just randomly get really noisy. And that's my main gripe with behringer. It's not really the sound (i'm not saying that it sounds great) but it's that they are unreliable. Some people get lucky and their stuff lasts forever, other people, have problems. And the one problem i did have with my yamaha was so easy to deal with. Somebody (me lol) spilled some water on my mixer and a fader had to be replaced. I called up yamaha, $10 and 2 days and i had a replacement one at my door. It was hastle free, didn't have to look up part numbers, etc. I would doubt behringer is anything like that.


Long post, i'm just describing my personal experience from more of a "non-technical" perspective and i really think it was a good upgrade, even though it was another budget mixer.

 

[chamelious]

Ok, another angle i forgot to mention, If the mixer is to be used in a live situation as well, would the soundcraft be a worthwhile behringer upgrade?

 

[SonicAlbert]

SonicAlbert, some of your comments are condescending and untrue.

I agree. For example, you haven't used the DMP3 or compared it to other pres, which makes your following statements rather erroneous:

Like you should talk about ad-copy SonicAlbert. Aren't you the one always advertising the DAV as sounding as good as preamps costing $1,000 per channel--and then defending your comments against all objectors as if you owned stock in the company.

So you are pretty much saying that although I compared the the DMP3 to a $600 Meek and a $1,400 Sebatron I don't know what I am talking about, but you, who have never used the DMP3 or compared it against anything, does know what he's talking about.
The Brick? Gimme a break. I've heard clips of this box, and at least for acoustic guitar, which I use the DMP3 for, the Brick loses.

Oh, and BTW, when the RNP first came out a member on this Board did a direct shootout between it and the DMP3 on acoustic guitar. A lot of members voted and a lot of members had red faces when the preamps were revealed and most had picked the DMP3.

None of this makes the DMP3 as good an overall preamp as the RNP or the Grace 101, or whatever. And if somebody wants follow your suggestion and take my opinion with a "grain of salt" thats ok. If they are wise, they will most certainly take your opinion with a grain of salt as well.

Because we all know about opinions, don't we.

I stand by my previous post--and it was not condescending or untrue. I certainly did not intend for it to be condescending.

If you'll reread my post, I made no negative or positive judgement about the DMP3 itself, only that people posting into this thread were offering opinions about gear they had not used.

As far as the DAV, I own one and have used it extensively. I have also used preamps that cost a thousand a channel or so. Any comments I've made about the BG-1 in other threads or this one are indeed based on actual experience. Further, I have no interest in DAV the company other than the good gear they sell, and profit in no way for saying nice things about their preamps. I have never "advertised" the BG-1, I'm simply a very happy customer that is enthusiatic about their equipment.

You kind of proved my point when you said you heard clips of the Brick. Clips? That's exactly what I'm talking about, you made a *judgement* remark about the Brick and haven't ever actually had one in your hands and used it.

However, you seem to feel I was pointing a finger directly at you with those earlier remarks, which I wasn't. If you have used the DMP3 and the other preamps you mention, then you are exactly the person who *should* be posting your experiences into this kind of thread. Many opinions being offered are not as informed as yours, I dare say.

And again, reread my post--I made no judgement on the DMP3 itself.

So if you want me to recommend favorite preamps I've used then I suggest preamps by Grace, Neve, SSL, DAV, Midas, and whatever is in the Trident 80. But how helpful is that to the original poster of this thread?

The best comment I made in that post was that he will get a big improvement from bypassing the Behringer mixer entirely. Whether it's with a DMP3 or other preamp, getting those cheap electronics in the budget mixer out of the way will be the best thing he does.

 

[tdukex]

I stand by my previous post--and it was not condescending or untrue. I certainly did not intend for it to be condescending.

If you'll reread my post, I made no negative or positive judgement about the DMP3 itself, only that people posting into this thread were offering opinions about gear they had not used.

As far as the DAV, I own one and have used it extensively. I have also used preamps that cost a thousand a channel or so. Any comments I've made about the BG-1 in other threads or this one are indeed based on actual experience. Further, I have no interest in DAV the company other than the good gear they sell, and profit in no way for saying nice things about their preamps. I have never "advertised" the BG-1, I'm simply a very happy customer that is enthusiatic about their equipment.

You kind of proved my point when you said you heard clips of the Brick. Clips? That's exactly what I'm talking about, you made a *judgement* remark about the Brick and haven't ever actually had one in your hands and used it.

However, you seem to feel I was pointing a finger directly at you with those earlier remarks, which I wasn't. If you have used the DMP3 and the other preamps you mention, then you are exactly the person who *should* be posting your experiences into this kind of thread. Many opinions being offered are not as informed as yours, I dare say.

And again, reread my post--I made no judgement on the DMP3 itself.

So if you want me to recommend favorite preamps I've used then I suggest preamps by Grace, Neve, SSL, DAV, Midas, and whatever is in the Trident 80. But how helpful is that to the original poster of this thread?

The best comment I made in that post was that he will get a big improvement from bypassing the Behringer mixer entirely. Whether it's with a DMP3 or other preamp, getting those cheap electronics in the budget mixer out of the way will be the best thing he does.

I re-read your post several times before posting. The words and the meaning haven't changed. It is you who should re-read my post. I stand by it as well.

 

[SonicAlbert]

We both stand by our posts. That's excellent. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I will take them into consideration.

 

[tdukex]

Excellent. Thank you for sharing your thought process.

 

[SonicAlbert]

Ok, another angle i forgot to mention, If the mixer is to be used in a live situation as well, would the soundcraft be a worthwhile behringer upgrade?

I think the answer to this is: maybe.

It depends on the situations that you will be using the mixer. If the places you'll be playing have a lousy sound system then I don't think the upgrade would be worth it. If however, you think the sound systems will be good enough for the audience to hear the difference between the mixers, then the investment in a better mixer could be worth the money.

Audio for live is so different from studio/recording in the sense that there is so much more noise when playing live. Very often there is noticable system noise in the house sound, there is audience noise, AC noise, sometimes street noise, noise from amps with grounding issues or buzzy this or that. The list goes on and on. In a perfect situation none of that happens, but there are many variables when playing live gigs.

So for those reasons I personally wouldn't change out the mixer for the sake of a live gig unless you are sure it will make a difference. I'd maybe do something like use the Behringer for live and upgrade my recording setup at home. I have a completely seperate live rig and don't swap gear with my home studio other than one synth module.

So in that scenario you'd possibly buy a preamp and upgrade your mics for your home studio, running the pre directly into your sound card. Maybe keep the Behringer for monitoring purposes, but primarily use it when gigging.

I just don't think a sidegrade from one budget mixer to another is really going to be worth it in the long run. While there may be some improvement, I don't believe in spending money unless there will be a big improvement.

So for that reason I don't believe in small upgrades or sidegrades. The way to upgrade is to save up enough money to replace the old budget gear with new gear that is a few classes up. That goes for mics, preamps, anything really. In the long run that saves you money and gives you better tools to work with.