Behringer, a jem or crap?
- Thread starter cowboyj
- Start date
saads
Baka
^^^This. You hear enough people say something and you automatically start to believe it. Also, it's important to have realistic expectations from your equipment. I have a pair of Behri overhead mics, 50 bucks a pair. They're no AKGs, but they do the job fine, I've never had any problems.
+1....I`m hip
MartiVltori
New member
I've had two behringer products. One was a V-Amp pro that sounded fair at best, had a horrible user interface and died after less than a year of very minimal usage. It has since been replaced with a digitech gsp1101 which I love.
the second is a behringer ultragain dual channel tube mic pre that I actually kind of like and have had no problems with.
I would be leary of buying any new behringer items because of my experience with the v-amp.
the second is a behringer ultragain dual channel tube mic pre that I actually kind of like and have had no problems with.
I would be leary of buying any new behringer items because of my experience with the v-amp.
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
vamp's actually a decent unit.
And its' interface is basically the same as a POD.
I have both plus I have several Digitechs and a Rocktron Utopia (I'm a gear nut)
The best sounding is the Rocktron and it's the one I use if I HAVE to go direct into a board (I'm a live player)........ I prefer an amp but some gigs require direct.
For that the Rocktron os the best.
But the VAMP is WAY better sounding than the POD and pretty much equal to the older Digitechs I have.
And mine is probably 9 or 10 years old with quite a bit of usage ...... zero problems with it.
ollie99
New member
I have the behringer xenyx x1222usb interface and I really like it. It's quite small, 6 xlr inputs but it takes things up to a new level compared to the cheaper stuff. I know its not the most amazing thing but I think it's excellent value for money, does the job fine for me, and gives my desk a kind of professional feel to it if other people understand me?
I also have 2 behring c-2 condensers and I quite like them as well, they capture the symbols and toms on the drums not too badly, and the main thing to fault would be the actual drum kit in terms of sound produced.
I also have 2 behring c-2 condensers and I quite like them as well, they capture the symbols and toms on the drums not too badly, and the main thing to fault would be the actual drum kit in terms of sound produced.
I own a couple of Behringer products and have never had the slightest problem with either of them. I'm not a big fan of their manuals and had to contact support to answer some questions that weren't clearly explained. Their response was quick and detailed.
Someone up the thread made a VERY appropriate observation. It's important to have realistic expectations for the equipment we buy. Less expensive does NOT necessarilly equal CHEAP, but it can be unreasonable to expect absolute top-of-the-line performance from significantly less expensive equipment.
Someone up the thread made a VERY appropriate observation. It's important to have realistic expectations for the equipment we buy. Less expensive does NOT necessarilly equal CHEAP, but it can be unreasonable to expect absolute top-of-the-line performance from significantly less expensive equipment.
Phantom Piggy
Bacon
Behringer gear is the gear you get for free whilst buying other gear
Justsomeguy
Quiet is the new Loud
in my time i've owned/used quite a lot of behringer stuff and had mixed experiences. The little passive DI boxes are great and i've never had a problem using them either live or in the studio. In fact, i've got one of the DI4000's in my rack that's pretty useful, along with a behringer ultrapatch and they're both good.
Saying that, the beri mic's i've used have been god awful, both live and in the studio. a mate lent me one of his pairs of C-2's (which he swears by for acoustic guitar and drum overheads) and, with hindsight, i wish he hadn't of!
The beri mixers i've used have been hit and miss. At work we had four of the older Eurorack UB802's all of which died in under two years. However, a friend and i have used a Eurorack UB2442fx (an older model before they redid the faders) twice a week for live shows for 4 years with no problems. Granted, about a year ago we upgraded to a Presonus Studiolive 24.4.2 as we started doing bigger shows more regularly but we still have the eurorack and it still goes out once a week for a busy open mic. The pre's are ok, the EQ is usable, and the fx's are..... well..... they work. ironically, only since we've used it less have we had any problems; one of the channels died and the fx selector pot came off but to say how much work the desk has done i'm amazed how well it's held up (and the studiolive had to go back within 6 months of owning it as a channel died completely!).
oh, i also just remembered some one lent us a beri digital graphic EQ to try as he was selling it and we were interested. Long story short, we found it sounded best when the bypass button was pressed in
but then we also tried one of the regular beri graphics and it was fine.
So, all in all, i'm not anti-behringer in the slightest. However, i have stayed clear of the mic's and, given the choice, would usually use something else over a bit of behringer gear. But if there was no alternatives, i wouldn't grumble
Saying that, the beri mic's i've used have been god awful, both live and in the studio. a mate lent me one of his pairs of C-2's (which he swears by for acoustic guitar and drum overheads) and, with hindsight, i wish he hadn't of!
The beri mixers i've used have been hit and miss. At work we had four of the older Eurorack UB802's all of which died in under two years. However, a friend and i have used a Eurorack UB2442fx (an older model before they redid the faders) twice a week for live shows for 4 years with no problems. Granted, about a year ago we upgraded to a Presonus Studiolive 24.4.2 as we started doing bigger shows more regularly but we still have the eurorack and it still goes out once a week for a busy open mic. The pre's are ok, the EQ is usable, and the fx's are..... well..... they work. ironically, only since we've used it less have we had any problems; one of the channels died and the fx selector pot came off but to say how much work the desk has done i'm amazed how well it's held up (and the studiolive had to go back within 6 months of owning it as a channel died completely!).
oh, i also just remembered some one lent us a beri digital graphic EQ to try as he was selling it and we were interested. Long story short, we found it sounded best when the bypass button was pressed in
but then we also tried one of the regular beri graphics and it was fine.So, all in all, i'm not anti-behringer in the slightest. However, i have stayed clear of the mic's and, given the choice, would usually use something else over a bit of behringer gear. But if there was no alternatives, i wouldn't grumble
mjbphotos
Moderator
After my experience with a Xenyx mixer (posted pages ago in this thread), I was loathe to try any of their other stuff, but I picked up a used Behr GMX212 amp at GC for band practice so that I could keep my Spider amp at home for recording. For $149, it was hard to beat. Has 2 12" Jensen speakers, 2 channels (I had to find a switching pedal online) and a limited FX bank (most of the fx don't sound that good). Despite being listed a 2X60 watt, it's not as loud as my Spider 75 watt unless I hit the 'gain' switch which really boosts the volume at the expense of clarity and tone.
For gigging, I'll revert to the Spider (we mic all amps) because of its overall ease of use and tone. As I'm switching between acoustic and electric guitars and keyboards constantly, I can set the Spider's sound banks to all different settings needed, then just hit the channel buttons on the pedal, or flick through the banks on the amp easily, and the Spider's FXs and ability to adjust them infinitely wipes the Behr's abilities out. I'll bring the Behr just for backup.
For gigging, I'll revert to the Spider (we mic all amps) because of its overall ease of use and tone. As I'm switching between acoustic and electric guitars and keyboards constantly, I can set the Spider's sound banks to all different settings needed, then just hit the channel buttons on the pedal, or flick through the banks on the amp easily, and the Spider's FXs and ability to adjust them infinitely wipes the Behr's abilities out. I'll bring the Behr just for backup.
Rolf Fiesel
New member
Hit and miss... thier Feedback destroyer..dosn't work yet ... 31 band eq works great !!! also the active pa speakers are also good.
I'm a big fan of the TV show "Nashville" and watch to see what brands of instruments and other equipment their characters are using. I was surprised to see a pair of Behringer powered speakers on-stage in a promo scene last night. I'm pretty sure stuff gets there by product placement fees, but still, I wasn't expecting Behringer.
BTW, I just bought a used HA4600 hearphone distribution amp. Great little machine. Our band members all use in-ear monitors it feeds. I also own a Behringer "Shark" feedback destroyer and a cable tester. Both work just fine; however, the feedback destroyer manual is difficult understand. I use the noise gate function frequently.
Overall, I'm well satisfied with all the Behringer products I've owned.
BTW, I just bought a used HA4600 hearphone distribution amp. Great little machine. Our band members all use in-ear monitors it feeds. I also own a Behringer "Shark" feedback destroyer and a cable tester. Both work just fine; however, the feedback destroyer manual is difficult understand. I use the noise gate function frequently.
Overall, I'm well satisfied with all the Behringer products I've owned.
phil fridge
New member
Behringer are much maligned, i am not unlike some restricted by budget but i dont see the point in paying 3X what i need to if there is a product out there that works.In 1998 i bought a Behringer 2442 eurodesk and used it with a Fostex D90. The Fostex died after 4 years , i then used it in live situations with a Spirit Power Amp , it outlived that to. Last month i sold it as a fully working unit and bought a new SX3242FX Behringer to use with a Fostex D2424VL, it works very well. Ok its new but having used the previous mixer for over a decade without problem i have no reason to doubt the reliability of the machine and it offers a lot for the cash.
I purchased a Behringer DDX3216 Digital Mixer over 10 years ago used it for some time and sold it to a friend who has used it live up until a few months ago when he purchased the new Behringer X32 and asked if I would like to have the DDX3216 back for free - I said yes - amazing this console is still going strong with no problems.
junplugged
Taking the slow road
seems like the last time i was more active here, this thread was up all the time...
My years of experience now is that some of it works enough, but you have to treat is very carefully, don't push it, don't expect it to last or be over used or it will die, also parts of it may die, but other parts, like mixer channels will still function, don't push it to levels that bring up the noise, don't expect it to really be 'pro' since it aint. if you can't afford better, than wtf is the question? just do it and save for later to replace it, unless you only use it once every 2 months, it will last until the dust kills it or if you let it sit near a heater or the sunlight by a window or in a basement that's too humid, or too dry, or has bugs, or chemicals, or you live next to the subway and it vibrates. ymmv, but as a hobby, maybe it's worth it, pro? no, if you are gonna get paid to do someone's work, no go, get real stuff that will give your client his money's worth and you get to keep decent gear, don't blow his job on a berry. you're own crappy demo? ok, fine, but if you need a lot of clean gain and pristine sounds, etc., you'll either be lucky or have to pay again. why so long? i have no idea, i guess my hands happen to be in a comfortable position to type.
My years of experience now is that some of it works enough, but you have to treat is very carefully, don't push it, don't expect it to last or be over used or it will die, also parts of it may die, but other parts, like mixer channels will still function, don't push it to levels that bring up the noise, don't expect it to really be 'pro' since it aint. if you can't afford better, than wtf is the question? just do it and save for later to replace it, unless you only use it once every 2 months, it will last until the dust kills it or if you let it sit near a heater or the sunlight by a window or in a basement that's too humid, or too dry, or has bugs, or chemicals, or you live next to the subway and it vibrates. ymmv, but as a hobby, maybe it's worth it, pro? no, if you are gonna get paid to do someone's work, no go, get real stuff that will give your client his money's worth and you get to keep decent gear, don't blow his job on a berry. you're own crappy demo? ok, fine, but if you need a lot of clean gain and pristine sounds, etc., you'll either be lucky or have to pay again. why so long? i have no idea, i guess my hands happen to be in a comfortable position to type.
YanKleber
Retired
I had three Behringer stuff till the date, and I had a good experience with 2 in 3. First equipment was a rack compressor/expander called 4400 something. I ended selling it because I bought it by impulse and ended noticing that for my purposes (hobby home recording) I could achieve the same result by using free VST. But the machine was awesome.
After that I bought a microphone preamp called Mic100 and a microphone model C-3. Here I think that I should leave observations about both.
First, the microphone. Until a few days ago I thought that the microphone was 'professional' stuff. But after to compare it with a SM-57 cheap clone that costed me five times less than the C-3 I became very disapointed to discover that the cheapo clone is way better than the Behringer C-3. Please don't get me wrong, the C-3 is NOT a complete crap. It works fine and is pretty usable, but the 57 clone is more quiet and deliver me a warmer voice recording than it, so I am using it and am going to sell the C-3. Make your own considerations. On a side note, the C-3 has that 'radio/studio' fancy style that gives to it a 'pro' look and that uses to impress people. If you produce video-clips with takes where people appear in a vocal booth and such, the C-3 may still be a nice cenographic prop.
About the Mic100 preamp, well, it is really a gem in my opinion: easy to use, it just works and is cheap. Now a curiosity about this. The Mic100 is advertised as being a tube preamp that suppose to 'warm' and slightly saturate the voice making it sound kind of vintage. Well, although it has a 12AX7 tube (or something similar to it) that may be visible through a grill cut in the top side of its metal box when it is lighted on, I cannot hear anything that remotely remind me a 'vintage' sound.
I have read a couple articles telling that the tube is just a bogus thing and that it does nothing. I even read one where the guy said that the tube wasn't plugged anywhere and that it even not light by itself and that there was orange leds behind it giving the impression that it was lighted. Well, THIS is lie. After to open the box of mine to take a look inside I can tell you that the tube IS attached to a socket in the circuit board and also have another socket in its top. And there is not any orange led behind it, so when it lights on it is really lighting itself. Now, if the audio passes through the tube or if the tube is there just to light on and does nothing else, well, this I really couldn't say. Anyway, the tube may be there for a reason or not. The only thing I know is that the Mic100 does a good job as a microphone preamp, and I don't give a sh*t if the tube is there just to make it fancier.
After that I bought a microphone preamp called Mic100 and a microphone model C-3. Here I think that I should leave observations about both.
First, the microphone. Until a few days ago I thought that the microphone was 'professional' stuff. But after to compare it with a SM-57 cheap clone that costed me five times less than the C-3 I became very disapointed to discover that the cheapo clone is way better than the Behringer C-3. Please don't get me wrong, the C-3 is NOT a complete crap. It works fine and is pretty usable, but the 57 clone is more quiet and deliver me a warmer voice recording than it, so I am using it and am going to sell the C-3. Make your own considerations. On a side note, the C-3 has that 'radio/studio' fancy style that gives to it a 'pro' look and that uses to impress people. If you produce video-clips with takes where people appear in a vocal booth and such, the C-3 may still be a nice cenographic prop.
About the Mic100 preamp, well, it is really a gem in my opinion: easy to use, it just works and is cheap. Now a curiosity about this. The Mic100 is advertised as being a tube preamp that suppose to 'warm' and slightly saturate the voice making it sound kind of vintage. Well, although it has a 12AX7 tube (or something similar to it) that may be visible through a grill cut in the top side of its metal box when it is lighted on, I cannot hear anything that remotely remind me a 'vintage' sound.
I have read a couple articles telling that the tube is just a bogus thing and that it does nothing. I even read one where the guy said that the tube wasn't plugged anywhere and that it even not light by itself and that there was orange leds behind it giving the impression that it was lighted. Well, THIS is lie. After to open the box of mine to take a look inside I can tell you that the tube IS attached to a socket in the circuit board and also have another socket in its top. And there is not any orange led behind it, so when it lights on it is really lighting itself. Now, if the audio passes through the tube or if the tube is there just to light on and does nothing else, well, this I really couldn't say. Anyway, the tube may be there for a reason or not. The only thing I know is that the Mic100 does a good job as a microphone preamp, and I don't give a sh*t if the tube is there just to make it fancier.