Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Behringer mixer built in FX reverb vs Digital Reverb

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Behringer mixer built in FX reverb vs Digital Reverb

    Sign in to disable this ad
    I am getting together my first set up for home recording (just to mess around with myself on different instruments), and I've already explored whether getting an AI or a USB mixer would be best for my needs, and decided to go with a Behringer Xenyx USB Mixer. I know there are many downsides to this such as it consolidating all channels to one track when recording, but since I will never be needing to record more than one track at a time it is most cost-efficient for me.

    As I'm deciding on exactly which model of mixer to buy, I've come across a question.

    The mixer without built in FX [the Behringer Xenyx Q1202USB Mixer] is $30 less than the one with built in FX [the Behringer Xenyx QX1202USB]. (I don't yet have permission to post links here, but I plan to buy from Musician's Friend)

    I definitely will want to add reverb when I record ukulele and possibly acoustic guitar, and wouldn't be using the built in FX for anything else. I'm not entirely certain what program I will be using to record with (maybe someone can suggest one), but I have used Audacity for recording directly from my soundcard and have Ableton Live 8 but haven't learned to use it yet. Is it worth it to pay the extra $30 for reverb from the board, or can I just as easily add quality reverb in the recording program? From what I understand about reverb, the reverb from the FX unit in the soundboard is digital anyway.

    Thanks
    Logan

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    northampton uk home of Dr Who and Blackstar Amps!
    Posts
    10,013
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 671 Times in 635 Posts
    Rep Power
    9374895
    Quote Originally Posted by logan12197 View Post
    I am getting together my first set up for home recording (just to mess around with myself on different instruments), and I've already explored whether getting an AI or a USB mixer would be best for my needs, and decided to go with a Behringer Xenyx USB Mixer. I know there are many downsides to this such as it consolidating all channels to one track when recording, but since I will never be needing to record more than one track at a time it is most cost-efficient for me.

    As I'm deciding on exactly which model of mixer to buy, I've come across a question.

    The mixer without built in FX [the Behringer Xenyx Q1202USB Mixer] is $30 less than the one with built in FX [the Behringer Xenyx QX1202USB]. (I don't yet have permission to post links here, but I plan to buy from Musician's Friend)

    I definitely will want to add reverb when I record ukulele and possibly acoustic guitar, and wouldn't be using the built in FX for anything else. I'm not entirely certain what program I will be using to record with (maybe someone can suggest one), but I have used Audacity for recording directly from my soundcard and have Ableton Live 8 but haven't learned to use it yet. Is it worth it to pay the extra $30 for reverb from the board, or can I just as easily add quality reverb in the recording program? From what I understand about reverb, the reverb from the FX unit in the soundboard is digital anyway.

    Thanks
    Logan
    Please don't do this Logan!
    Now I am not a Behringer basher! In fact I have defended the companie's products many times (if not their early business ethics!) and I own a Xenxy 802 and it did sterling work for me a couple of years ago, but....Not what you want for basic home recording.

    You need an Audio Interface and one that has attracted much kudos is the Steinberg UR22. This comes with Cubase "lite" but you can try Reaper or my favourite free software, Samplitude Siver cloud. There are also many other AIs on the market at the 100-150 point, Focusrite, Tascam, Roland to name but 3.

    WRT reverb: The general "rule" is to record without it ("dry and clean" as they say) and then add it using software as and where/when. The software FX, reverb etc in any of the prorams I have mentioned are going to be of vastly better quality than those in the Behringer.

    Oh! And I better tell you to read the stickies!

    Dave.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Age
    67
    Posts
    6,493
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 226 Times in 196 Posts
    Rep Power
    21474856
    Yup.

    Record your original tracks with no effects then add what you need later. Once added while tracking you can never change them; adding them later allows you to experiment and change things until you get exactly the right sound.

    Up to you if you want a mixer but, dollar for dollar an interface will provide better quality simply because you're not paying for flashing lights and extra knobs you don't need. If a mixer is cheaper than an interface despite looking more complicated, you have to ask yourself where the money was saved...the answer isn't reassuring in terms of audio quality or long term reliability.
    That's what I do. I drink and I know things.
    -Tyrion Lannister (and Bobbsy)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    First of all, thanks for both of your inputs regarding the reverb, that makes sense now that I think about it.

    However, like I said I did a lot of research between an AI or mixer before I decided to use a mixer. Although I wasn't really planning to go into it in this thread, let me at least walk you through my thought process.

    -I understand that for recording purposes, I would be sacrificing potential sound quality by using a mixer instead of an AI. I'm not releasing music for anyone else to hear, and I'm not too concerned about the best quality at the moment.
    -I was looking at a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2, but $100 is a lot cheaper than $150 when you're a high school student and have no income
    -In addition to recording myself on different instruments and layering those tracks at home, I also intend to use the mixer for live use (just playing with friends and running 2 mics and drum/track through it) and will need more than the 2 inputs on a ~$150 AI. The limited inputs for the cost is the main reason I was going to go with the flexibility of a mixer.

    Obviously I respect your opinions, which is why I posted here (what do I know after all), so let me know what your thoughts are about this now that you know more information.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    northampton uk home of Dr Who and Blackstar Amps!
    Posts
    10,013
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 671 Times in 635 Posts
    Rep Power
    9374895
    Hmm...Budget botherations, always a PITA.

    Ok, well you could look for one of these..
    M-Audio Fast Track Pro (Mobile USB Audio / MIDI Interface) | eBay

    They are of such a BSH build that they rarely go wrong (in 8 years of recording and forums I have never read of a dud). I picked up a Tascam 144 complete with an un registered copy of Cubase LE4 for 60 a year ago from Cash Generators, works fine.

    The problem(s) with usb mixers is not so much the audio quality, I have an 802 and have used it with Berrie's UCA202 converter (which is what is in the tin) and, so long as you watch the levels, the rig has bugger all headroom, the sound is pretty good. Then my 802 has been perfectly reliable (but my 3 BCA2000s weren't!) no, it is the actual usage of the usb "system" that makes these mixers a poor choice for the home recordist. I have an A&H ZED 10, arguably one of the best "simple" 16bit usb mixers extant but even this is a bit of a PITA to use as a recording/track building tool (I don't, it runs into a 2496 sound card which comes out to another mixer).

    But, if that is all you can afford and you need a mixer for other duties, carry on. We will still be here to help with any problems that might (ho, ho, ho!) arise.

    Dave.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Age
    67
    Posts
    6,493
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 226 Times in 196 Posts
    Rep Power
    21474856
    Okay, thanks for the update.

    If you're also planning to use it for live mixing then, even though it's less than perfect for recording, then I can see the logic of the mixer. It might not last as long as a better interface but, as something to play with for a few years, fine.

    That said, now that we know you want to do some live stuff, you may also want to reconsider the issue of effects. What we said about not recording with effects still holds--but, when performing, the ability to add a bit of reverb or whatever can give a more polished sound.
    That's what I do. I drink and I know things.
    -Tyrion Lannister (and Bobbsy)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Age
    67
    Posts
    6,493
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 226 Times in 196 Posts
    Rep Power
    21474856
    ...yeah, a lot of small mixers are pretty badly designed and a PITA. What you need, ecc83 is a really BIG mixer, something like this:

    221950d1298675953-new-studio-two-control-room-abbey-road-new-studio-two-desk-jpg

    Big mixers are fun!
    That's what I do. I drink and I know things.
    -Tyrion Lannister (and Bobbsy)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    northampton uk home of Dr Who and Blackstar Amps!
    Posts
    10,013
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 671 Times in 635 Posts
    Rep Power
    9374895
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobbsy View Post
    ...yeah, a lot of small mixers are pretty badly designed and a PITA. What you need, ecc83 is a really BIG mixer, something like this:

    221950d1298675953-new-studio-two-control-room-abbey-road-new-studio-two-desk-jpg

    Big mixers are fun!
    Fork! I could not get that in my living room, leave off my "studio"! Anyway, Abbey R is just down the road from me and the guys said I could pop in anytime......!

    Dave.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Queensland, Australia
    Age
    67
    Posts
    6,493
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 226 Times in 196 Posts
    Rep Power
    21474856
    Largest I've ever used was a 56 channel Cadac for a live show and a few 48 channel consoles for both live and studio stuff. Technically my home studio digital mixer is also 48 channels but, being spread over 3 channel layers and a master layer I don't really count that!

    But the serious point is that, a well designed pro mixer can be a delight to use. The PITA problems you've had are mainly down to the small mixers being built to a price and leaving out many of the routing options that you'd buy a mixer for.

    Last I looked (admittedly a couple of weeks ago) there was a 32 channel Amek BC1 on ebay.co.uk. You NEED a mixer like that, Dave!
    That's what I do. I drink and I know things.
    -Tyrion Lannister (and Bobbsy)

  10. #10
    RAMI Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by logan12197 View Post
    I'm not too concerned about the best quality at the moment.
    It's a good thing you put "at the moment" at the end of that, because I guarantee you this will change, it always does. We've all said the same thing when we started recording. It's a drug and a deep addiction, I tell you.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. reverb VST plugin vs. ouboard digital reverb
    By fendorst in forum Recording Techniques
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-15-2011, 23:50
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-14-2011, 14:58
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-03-2010, 17:12
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-01-2009, 15:31
  5. Using the spring reverb from a Fender twin reverb amp as an external effect
    By thethirdman111 in forum Analog Recording & Mixing - Tape & Gear
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-22-2008, 18:48

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •