Brick loses in showdown to Behringer. wtf?!

[Hiwatt Bob]

ok,

i have been using the pre's on my behringer for the last couple years, and i wanted to get a mic pre that warmed up the sound a bit, coloration would be a good thing.

so i went out and bought the brick (figuring on some tube warmth) and a Joemeek VC6Q.

today i ran some comparisons using a strat direct in. i recorded direct into my echo layla. all EQ's were flat (except i did boost the treble a bit on the joemeek). i was mystified by the results. the behringer was the warmest of the three, by far. in fact, the brick and the joemeek sounded remarkable similar. truth be told, there was more high end clarity on those two--but i guess i was looking for a pre that would warm/fatten things up. these two seem much more crisp, which might be good for certain things--but i was looking for warmth.

another thing that mystified me was the Bricks inability to clip. i tried to get a signal that hovered around 0 db, with peaks that would go into the red but would not clip. i had to set the meek very conservatively, lots of gain on hand here. and even the behringer was set conservatively, with the trim around 30 db and the fader dimed to +10 db. I had to dime the Brick to get it to hover around 0 db, and no matter how hard i played--i couldn't get it to clip. it says it's +55 db when maxed. i actually have 2 bricks here right now and i tried the other one, same results. does this seem right??

tonight i'm staying in so i plan on running more tests with mics, maybe that's where the differences will show up. yesterday i briefly ran a test with an SM57 and the Joemeek was definitely warmer than the Behringer. but i need to test the Brick with some mics. i can update this later.

Can anyone explain the results i got?? i monitored on headphones as well as speakers and the results didn't change--so it's not that.

thanks guys.

[mshilarious]

Were you using a DI box?

[Hiwatt Bob]

i guess i don't understand the question. the brick is a DI as well as a preamp. but i guess the answer is no, for both the Brick and the Meek i went directly into the Echo Layla soundcard.

[diogo]

just curious Bob,

what behringer unit is that? a 1953? or just those euro mixers or whatever..

tanx!

[Hiwatt Bob]

diogo, i'm using a Behringer MX2642A 16-track mixer.

--------------

Ok, update. i did some more tests. one using an SM57 in front of a Hiwatt DR504 & 2x12 hiwatt cab & Les Paul Deluxe. the other was a vocal test using an MXL (marshall) 2001.

SM57/Guitar:

the margin here was alot slimmer between all three. but i'd have to say the joemeek barely edged out the competition, the right blend of clarity and warmth. followed closely by the Behringer (?!wtf?!)--overall this was again the warmest sounding. lastly the brick, least warmth of the 3, although again it had some clarity--it just sounded kind of brittle compared to the other two. but let me ephasize again that the margin here was much much closer than on the guitar-direct-in test.

MXL2001/vocal:

Again the joemeek won in terms of warmth and clarity. again, Behringer 2nd and Brick 3rd. all of them sounded alot warmer than the sm57 tests. i will say that the Brick seemed the quietest in terms of background room noise on this test, but it just didn't hold up to the others in terms of sound.


to conclude:
i feel let down in both of the preamps--and i'm actually quite surprised at how the Behringer held it's own. and i paid less for the mixer than i did for either of these preamps--and it has 8 mono powered channels, 4 stereo channels etc. i'll probably hold onto the meek, because i did prefer it for vocals and guitar--and i really like the compresser and Eq. but i'm thinking i need to take back the Brick (actually Bricks, since i brought home 2).

i do have a question though. the guitar test was simply me recording the same guitar track--so there was no mix for it to sit in. and the vocal test was done only over a guitar track. Perhaps in a fuller, more saturated mix something like the Brick might stand out and bring the track to the forefront?? perhaps even though the track itself doesn't sound great by itself, it might cut through a mix better than something warmer sounding?? anyone have any thoughts here? the fate of 2 Bricks lays in your hands.

thanks.

[zed32]

you know i think i've read on here about someone who said they were disappointed at first with the sound of their Brick, but then after mixing tracks with it, they said that's when it really began to shine. before taking it back to the store, maybe try using the brick recorded sounds in a mix and see how they stand out? i'm not sure who it was that posted this, but i'm pretty sure i remember reading about it on here while doing some research on the Brick.

and it's quite possible that the "warmth" of the behringer can turn into muddiness in the mix, whereas the clarity of the Brick will help it sit better when mixed.

[turnitdown]

This confirms what I've suspected all along...
I had a Behringer MX2004 mixer.... then I bought a Burr-Brown modified Symetrix SX-202 Dual mic preamp.

I did extensive A/B tests w/ vocals, acoustic guitar, etc using MXL 603s mics and some others, Shure SM-57s, V67g....

The Behringer pres sounded "fatter and less sterile", (sterile could also be interpreted as "clearer").. The Behris were good as long as you didn't boost EQ on the strip, or crank the gain above 3:00. (and they were dead silent...) (The Symetrix didn't like being cranked too hard for makeup gain either...)

So.... was one better than the other???? Not really, but the Behri's actually sounded really good... my wife preferred them on her vocals, and my voice, while we both preferred the Symetrix on acoustic guitar.

We couldn't hear a difference w/ bass via DI box...

They're just different...

I now use a Aphex 107 w/ a NOS JAN12ax7 tube, and trimmed down bias pot.... I find I use it more than anything else. I use an RNC Comp and a ART PRO VLA for compression into a Delta 44...

Food for thought.... flame away if you must...

[mshilarious]

Originally Posted by Hiwatt Bob

i guess i don't understand the question. the brick is a DI as well as a preamp. but i guess the answer is no, for both the Brick and the Meek i went directly into the Echo Layla soundcard.

OK then, what about the Behri? Does it have a high impedance input?

Anyway, I suspect from your other posts you are hearing a loss of highs as warmth. It's really easy to get rid of highs in a mix; much tougher to add them back in.

[diogo]

Originally Posted by Hiwatt Bob

diogo, i'm using a Behringer MX2642A 16-track mixer.

--------------

to conclude:
i feel let down in both of the preamps--and i'm actually quite surprised at how the Behringer held it's own. and i paid less for the mixer than i did for either of these preamps--and it has 8 mono powered channels, 4 stereo channels etc. i'll probably hold onto the meek, because i did prefer it for vocals and guitar--and i really like the compresser and Eq. but i'm thinking i need to take back the Brick (actually Bricks, since i brought home 2).

i do have a question though. the guitar test was simply me recording the same guitar track--so there was no mix for it to sit in. and the vocal test was done only over a guitar track. Perhaps in a fuller, more saturated mix something like the Brick might stand out and bring the track to the forefront?? perhaps even though the track itself doesn't sound great by itself, it might cut through a mix better than something warmer sounding?? anyone have any thoughts here? the fate of 2 Bricks lays in your hands.

thanks.

thanks Bob...euromixer good god i never thought seeing anyone praise that piece of gear, especially on this board

the new meeks are supposed to be real good...i almost picked up a 3Q myself..but i prefer keeping my dmp3 and add an Electro Harmonix tube pre in the future...a good track going in, wont need eq right, well most of the time.. so i guess im gonna focus in sending in good tracks than getting a pre thats an eq and a comp all in one...although they do look good and tempting.

i think your line of thought regarding the brick might be the best...in a crowded mix, the "invisible" qualities of that pre might surface..but who knows...hey, maybe you got two defective units with the 2 bricks, highly unlikable but...u never know

[scrubs]

Originally Posted by Hiwatt Bob

the behringer was the warmest of the three, by far. in fact, the brick and the joemeek sounded remarkable similar. truth be told, there was more high end clarity on those two--but i guess i was looking for a pre that would warm/fatten things up. these two seem much more crisp, which might be good for certain things--but i was looking for warmth.

another thing that mystified me was the Bricks inability to clip. i tried to get a signal that hovered around 0 db, with peaks that would go into the red but would not clip. i had to set the meek very conservatively, lots of gain on hand here. and even the behringer was set conservatively, with the trim around 30 db and the fader dimed to +10 db. I had to dime the Brick to get it to hover around 0 db, and no matter how hard i played--i couldn't get it to clip. it says it's +55 db when maxed.

Can anyone explain the results i got?? i monitored on headphones as well as speakers and the results didn't change--so it's not that.

I am not surprised that you couldn't get the brick to "clip" with a DI guitar with passive pickups. +55dB is not high-gain for a preamp. Also, you can't really overdrive the tubes in the Brick, as it's not designed for that. However, I have always been able to get a strong enough signal without excessive noise out of my Brick.

I cannot really disagree with the findings of your test, but I think we run into problems of overusing descriptors that have no real definition. Your version of "warm" may be different than mine. My experience with Behringer mixer pres was that they sounded very muffled and undefined, almost as if there were a blanket over the high frequency response. Other pres I've used (Brick, DMP3, VTB-1) seem to have more detail and clarity in the upper frequencies. In my mind, this mystical "warmth" has to do with pleasing upper frequency distortion that adds flattery to a track. Since my Behringer pres had no response up there, I couldn't really call them warm. Of course, given Behringer's quality control, your mixer pres might also be quite different from mine. I say, use whatever gives you the sound you are looking for.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. I'm sure those Bricks will find a good home.

[formerlyfzfile]

I am not an owner of a brick/Aphex/or Jomeek ..... just a UA2108, dbx 286a, and my tascam mixer pres.

I did however used to have a Berri MX mixer for pres and I NEVER heard it sound "fat and warm". Maybe its just me, but "brittle" and "sterile" deffinitely the most defining characteristics of the MX pres, as well as really shitty headroom.

Granted it was an older MX (forget the model .... 8 channel one) and I have heard the newer ones have better pres but I wonder if the "warmth" your hearing is distortion. (well warmth usually is distortion of a certain sort)

I mean if what you hear is what you like then thats the right thing but I'm just saying that after getting my Tascam board and hearing other budget pres I couldnt sell the Berry mixer fast enough.

-mike

[Strave]

Originally Posted by scrubs

Your version of "warm" may be different than mine. My experience with Behringer mixer pres was that they sounded very muffled and undefined, almost as if there were a blanket over the high frequency response. Other pres I've used (Brick, DMP3, VTB-1) seem to have more detail and clarity in the upper frequencies.

I agree completely. The three different behringer preamps I've had (a eurorack mixer, the channel strip vocals thing, and that little one) have all had a similar sound and the best word to describe it is muffled. You may describe this as warm, but to me it was a crappy sound that I couldn't even fix with EQ. It wasn't warm but blanketed. The Brick just seems like a whole different quality to me. It's solid... it's sound isn't finicky, it's basically noiseless, there's never a problem and it never leaves me having to explain the "blanketed" sound to people. That being said i think the Behringer B1 is as good as the studio projects C1 or better (sound wise) so I'm not just totally against behringer. I just honestly think, without bias, that behringer preamps are of very low quality.

[Strave]

Originally Posted by diogo

...a good track going in, wont need eq right, well most of the time.. so i guess im gonna focus in sending in good tracks than getting a pre thats an eq and a comp all in one...although they do look good and tempting.

I really disagree. Especially with budget equipment, you're never going to pick up a source exactly the way it sounds, or exactly the way you want it sound... that is why almost everyone uses EQ. If you are religiously against it, your tracks are going to show it. Some people run their tracks through EQ just because they like the sound it imparts... without really adjusting any frequencies. I mean EQ is just a necessary part of recording commercial music.

[chessrock]

Originally Posted by Hiwatt Bob

but i need to test the Brick with some mics.

Considering that it is a mic pre ... that might not be a bad idea.

I could give a flying fuck how a mic pre sounds as a DI. That's not why I buy them. That's what DI's are for.

[Hiwatt Bob]

chessrock, i did test with mics--see my post above. the brick placed third on both mic tests.

ok, i took the mic test tracks (vocals) from before and pasted them into a full mix (a song in the same key so it didn't sound too horrendous). here the brick did a bit better than before and actually in this application it was slightly better than the behringer--the behringer cut through the mix the most out of the three but the other two sounded better tone-wise. the Joemeek was still the best, it cut through good and still sounded the warmest.

this was enough to convince me to hold onto the brick (one of them)--

when i say warm, i'm not just talking about lack of high end--in fact my defintion of warm includes a alot of high end. i guess my conception of warmth is somewhat intangeble, not easily explainable to everyone here. i know it when i hear it. i guess the best way to describe it would be how a tube guitar amp compares to a solid state. both can have low-end frequencies, mids, and highs--but the valve amps just sound warmer. my hiwatt has all kinds of treble to spare--but the highs still sound warm to me.

i guess the end result is that i'm really looking forward to using the Joemeek in the future. i still need to experiment with the Brick to find the applications it works in. But the biggest thing i learned was that the Behringer mixer i have works for me. i realize their stuff gets ripped on alot here, and that's fine--to each his own. actually i find it kind of strange though, i was told the Behringer i have is an almost exact copy of a Mackie--i think the only difference is that the power supply is external as opposed to being located inside the unit itself, but otherwise the circuitry is identical. yet i hear alot of people talk about how great the Mackie is for a low to mid quality mixer/pre. i suppose we could rip on Behringer for being design theives, but soundwise--to my ears, my mixer at least held up with the Brick and the Meek. Maybe if i had thousands of dollars to spend on gear i'd be able to get something that would blow any of these pre's out of the water, but i'd like to stay married.

ok, flame away.

[turnitdown]

We have a "Brick" where I used to work.... no one there really likes it for much... I'm not a real big fan, but it's anothertool in the toolbox....

[jeff0633]

I have had an old MX mixer, and the brick, DMP3, and a few others. The Brick is far and away better than the Behringer. They are not even in the same league. The Brick I had was absolutely wonderful. I hate to say this, but I think your ears may not be able to hear a good pre when you listen to one. That's harsh, but probably true. The components in both are like night and day. No way does a pre with the cheap components of the Behringer sound as good as a brick, not even close. If that were true, then you would find pros dumping their thousand dollar Great Rivers for 60 dollar MX series boards. What I am saying is, THERE IS NO OPINION ABOUT IT, the BEHRINGER DOES NOT SOUND EVEN CLOSE TO AS GOOD AS THE BRICK, and if you are thinking it does, then you have not been recording long enough!!

I'll post a sample of the Brick later tonight to show you what I mean.

[heroics321]

it's not like anyone knows what exactly was recorded by mr.bob, the originator. before anyone judges his recording experience, think about the fact that for whatever crazy reason, maybe the behringer sounded better for what he was doing. also think about the rest of his signal chain... mic, converters, and especially monitors. any of the above could easily cause him not to see an extreme difference in what was recorded. just something to consider about any sort of test such as this.

[The Axis]

No surprise here.
I think it just shows that although people bash Behringer for various "political" reasons, it is actually damn good equipment.

It seems like defending Behringer has become one of my hobbies. I know it isn't the ceme-de-la-creme, but it is damn good for the money, and beats equipment priced significantky higher. It certainly isn't the "crap" that some of the hoity-toities try to make it out to be.


Keep doing those A/B blind comparisons and you can save a LOT of money !

[Hiwatt Bob]

Like i said, i went direct from the pre's into my Echo Layla soundcard into cakewalk sonar4 producer edition. monitors are my Klipsch computer speakers--which undoubtedly color the sound a bit, and my Audio Technica headphones.

also, like i said, i'm keeping the Brick simply because it did perform pretty well when the vocal track was mixed in with a fairly full song (drums,bass,synths,guitars,violins etc). it cut through better than the others and actually sounded better than the Behringer in this situation.

i am kind of a novice at recording. go to:
http://www.myspace.com/rygiboges

if you care to hear what i've recorded. i do have a somewhat lo-fi work ethic--which might be why i differ from alot of you. everything on that site was recorded through my Behringer--so i'm guessing i'll get some criticism, which i welcome.

[Mr. Moon]

Like most inexpenive audio recording gear, Behringer gear colors the sound in a way that is pleasant to the human ear, but make it tough to sit well in a mix. As it has already been pointed out, if you start piling these tracks on one another in a project (song), you'll begin to notice some "interesting" audial anomalies which will cause you to go "WTF was that?!!" For the price point, Behringer gear "works" and is a good starting point for beginners.

The Brick "tells it like it is" regarding the source (sh1t in = sh1t out) and doesn't color the sound in the same way. The tracks I've recorded with the Brick (bass, as a DI, acoustic guitars, mandolin, guitar cabs, etc.) sound like the source, sit in a mix correctly, and can easily be modified ITB however I want, while retaining their original "feel" and sound.

IMHO, the Brick takes some time to get used to ...I mean, h3ck, it only has one huge knob (to adjust gain) and doesn't have 5 hundred little buttons like most (Behringer) gear has nowadays. The gain settings on the Brick make a HUGE difference in the results you'll achieve. Work with it for a while and you'll find its sweet spot for every source...

Good luck!

-mr moon

[heroics321]

bob, i know where you're coming from. the behringer gear is definitely working for ya, as the preamps in my ada8000 are working for me. my gear works fine for my sideproject (indie/lofi-ish)... where i start to notice the differences are in denser mixes. they are most definitely not terrible, but i'm still lookin for "something" in most of those cases.

[ocnor]

I have a Behringer UB802 mixer that I use to monitor with headphones. The pre's in it sound dull and lifeless. They don't even sound nearly as good as the pre's in an M-Audio Audiobuddy. I just can't understand how anyone would prefer the muffled sound of the Behringer.

[FALKEN]

not surprising. everything I have read on this board from brick users bought it and use it because it is supposed to be "clean". As for the behringer, yeah those can sound great too. especially with not that many tracks. but like everyone is saying, I found, after recording an album with a small behri mixer, that having more "pallettes" will make for a much easier mix. if you want a dirty sound, take back the brick and get a bluetube and some monitors.

[jeff0633]

Originally Posted by ocnor

I have a Behringer UB802 mixer that I use to monitor with headphones. The pre's in it sound dull and lifeless. They don't even sound nearly as good as the pre's in an M-Audio Audiobuddy. I just can't understand how anyone would prefer the muffled sound of the Behringer.

Exactly. If you know what to listen for, there's NO WAY you can prefer the MX series pres over the Brick, FOR ANYTHING. Those MX pres are probably about 5 to 10 dollars worth of parts. I can buy an MX602 for 20 bycks on Ebay. The components simply are total crap, and there is simply no way that it could DO ANYTHING BETTER than a Brick, unless you think bad is good, and good is bad. What I am saying is, if you think it swounds better than a brick, THEN THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE OUT OF WHACK. I have owned an 802, 602, and 2004A. All having the MX series pres, and they are simply the cheapest components Behringer could find. They are dull, noisy, lifeless, not transparent... a pre that cost about 10 bucks to make CAN DO NOTHING BETTER THAN THE BRICK!! The components simply won't allow it. Like I said, if you think they souynd better at anything, then something is not right somewhere else. Either you don't know what "GOOD" is, or there is something else wrong. The components in the Brick and the 10 dollar MX pres are not even in the same league, and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. Now, having said this, I do like some Behringer gear, I have heard good recordings from the toob Mic 220, I also have had a UB series board, and it was WORLDS better than the MX stuff, and compared good to the Mackie VLZ pro pres. I also like the multi effects Virtualizer, the new model, nice verbs and not a thing wrong with it. So I have been a supporter of Behringer in the past, do a search on this board for my username, and you will see a post called "lots of unfair Behringer bashing going on here". In it, I actually post a clip of a song done with a Mic 220 tube unit, and also a clip from a Great River pre to show how a room is more important than a preamp. So, I have no problem buying Behringer gear, but I assure you, I have owned a Brick and many MX eries pres, and there is simply no comparison. Soemthing else is off here if you are thinking it is. DO NOT SELL YOUR BRICK, you will regret it in the future. I had to sell mine for money reasons, and I swear I want another real bad. I also usede to own the peavey vMP2, and I think the Brick is better than that was, though it cost more for two channels than the VMP2 did, so I guess that's not a fair comparison.

Jeff