Behringer DDX3216 Digital Mixer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Berlingj
  • Start date Start date
B

Berlingj

New member
OK, I'll ask this question anyway, knowing in advance that a few people on this BBS, who seem to have both a real personal dislike for Behringer, et. al. and, oddly, no Behringer equipment (on what, then, do you base your opinions? "I would never buy Behringer, that's why I hate it..." HUH?), will immediately bash this new piece of gear simply because it is Behringer...

Anyone out there have enough experience with the new DDX3216 digital mixer to do a fair review of it?

Based on the manufacturer's claims (yeah, yeah, I know....), it seems to offer an awful lot that one needs to get into a REALLY high end board (ie; the Mackie D8b) to get, such as individually assignable gates and compressors, effects, etc, and the sheer number of routing options (exceeds even the Mackie if I understand the spec correctly).

For the record, I must be one of those rare people who has either complete tone-deafness or unbelievable luck, because I have a home studio full of Behringer gear (mics - which I prefer over both my SM58s and SM57s - amps, speakers, effects, and a small M802A sub-mixer), and I simply love every piece of it, with NEVER a problem of any sort...

I do only "live" recording in my small home studio, micing everything, and then sending it straight out of my board to a CD burner - one take, one track, so we sound like we sound...

I'm thinking of replacing my old Yamaha (EMX 2000) board with this new one from Behringer.

Can anyone give me an INFORMED reason, based on this actual piece of equipment, not to do so?
 
I too have really been eying this piece and posted a thread similar to this one. I was told that the upsides to this piece of equipment are the 24-bit depths and the motorized faders while the downsides are the crappy pre's (not enough gain and noisy), noisy AD converters, half-assed equalizers, crappy compression, and behringer's renowned tendency to break. I haven't had a chance to try this unit yet but I am going to try to. Sometimes Behringers higher priced stuff actually isn't too bad.

Maybe this mixer does stink. If so than that is a real bummer cause this is in my price range and I think I could really dig something like this.
 
thedude400 said:
.....downsides are the crappy pre's (not enough gain and noisy), noisy AD converters, half-assed equalizers, crappy compression, and behringer's renowned tendency to break. I haven't had a chance to try this unit yet but I am going to try to. Sometimes Behringers higher priced stuff actually isn't too bad.

Maybe this mixer does stink. If so than that is a real bummer cause this is in my price range and I think I could really dig something like this.
Click to expand...

Sure, go on ahead and A/B this unit vs other similarly-priced gear.
If at all possible, try to perform a comparison using the DDX and say for ex, a Mackie CFX, thru the same set of monitors. Listen for any unwanted signal noise from the pre's using a simple dynamic. Listen for any signal degradation when any particular channel fader is raised past unity. Check out ease of operation and overall perf then decide. Just don't judge purchasing this unit solely on it's lo-ball price and its cosmetically appealing looks.
 
MISTERQCUE said:
Sure, go on ahead and A/B this unit vs other similarly-priced gear.
If at all possible, try to perform a comparison using the DDX and say for ex, a Mackie CFX, thru the same set of monitors. Listen for any unwanted signal noise from the pre's using a simple dynamic. Listen for any signal degradation when any particular channel fader is raised past unity. Check out ease of operation and overall perf then decide. Just don't judge purchasing this unit solely on it's lo-ball price and its cosmetically appealing looks.
Click to expand...

The Mackie CFX isn't even remotely similar to the Behringer DDX console Mr.NoIQ. But, I guess if you want to make the comparison, we are going to need to add in a few things.

You will need:

32 channels of gates
32 channels of compressors/limiters
16 channels of digital delay to be able to delay channels like the DDX does
3 digital effect processors

So, after you add all that in, are we close in price anymore?

Let's see, can the CFX automate it's mixes in ANY way? NO!
Can the CFX save console settings in ANY way? NO!
What sync options does the CFX have? NONE!
Is there even a 32 channel CFX console? NO!
Is there a ADAT Optical, TDIF, or AES/EBU I/O option for the CFX? NO!

Mackie doesn't even currently offer a digital console that is anywhere CLOSE to the same price range as the Behringer DDX. I don't think ANYBODY has a digital console with a feature set this extensive that is even CLOSE to the same price!

Give it up man. Your "one man Behringer wrecking crew" is based on very bogus comparisons! At least get your facts straight before you go making a fool of yourself with silly statements like the above!

Love ya anyway you dumbazz Mr.NoIQ, but you are just WAY off base usually when you are knocking Behringer gear.
 
HR.com member WILKEE uses one in his venue as the main desk all the time! Everything goes through it and he's always said he's very happy with it.

I'd be quite interested in one myself in fact for an installation I'm picking the items for soon in a sort of theatrical/gig venue. The question is whether to go for an LX7 and a bunch of outboard and skimp on the amps and cabs, or to go for a cheaper desk like this and get some better horns and bins and all that.

I know what "Ford Van" will say! ;)
 
I own a DD3216 and have used it for everything from recording to live sound. As a sound contractor I can say for a cheap board it does a good job. I had to use it in my church for a few months when out old Soundcraft bit the dust and it did as good of a job as you could expect for a sub $1000.00 mixer. What I noticed was the sound was thinner and did not have the full body that our Soundcraft had. Last week we got our new Soundcraft Series Two and that made a pretty noticable differance. But we are talking a 7k board vs a 1k board. Ive also used the DDX3216 for a lot of live shows and it has worked great for that. I love the fact that I can preprogam my channels and outputs and store them so all I have to do when I get to the event is recall them. So for live use it works very good for the money and effects are very usable.

I bought my DDX3216 to use with my HD24 when I first started recording and it did okey there to. I ended up using external pres and just using the DDX for mixing, effects and controling my HD24 which it did an excellant job at. I also added ADAT cards and an ADA8000 for more channels.

Is it a Soundcraft? No. Does to do a good job, yes. The last time I checked Muscians Friend was blowing them out at $500.00 and for that price that are a great deal for those on a budget. I would also say that the pres on the board sounds the same as anyother Behringer mixer.
 
CAnt believe I just typed all of that for a post from 12-26-2001
 
If you look at MF or Zzounds just to name a couple dealers, you'll see that this mixer is discontinued. The DDX3216 is *not* a mixer I would want to buy used.

Since you would most likely have to buy it used, I would suggest a couple other digital mixers instead, the Tascam DM-24 or the Panasonic/RAMSA DA7. The Tascam in particular is an excellent budget mixer in my opinion. You'd also be better off with a used Yamaha digital mixer, like the O3D or O1V for example.

I extensively demoed the DDX3216 when it was still available, and was less than impressed. Any of the mixers I mentioned above is a more sophisticated design. In particular, I felt the automated faders on the DDX3216 tended to fight me, and they felt kind of "grainy" if you will. Not real smooth.

Things like grouping faders is a real pain on the DDX3216, if you want to change the relative volume within the grouping, you have to ungroup them all, change the volumes, then regroup the faders. Clunky. Maybe that changed in a later OS, but I spent some time with the DDX3216 and walked away not wanting to spend money on it. Especially now, it's been discontinued, support will be even more non-existent than it was before. I'd be terrified of getting a lemon when buying this mixer used.

This is not to say that it won't suit some people, or be useful in certain situations. But for me, I was looking for performance and ended up spending more money on a better mixer, the DM-24. Still a budget desk but a more more polished design and execution of the design. You can get DM-24's on eBay now for about $1,000, which actually is a good deal for what you get.
 
noisedude said:
HR.com member WILKEE uses one in his venue as the main desk all the time! Everything goes through it and he's always said he's very happy with it.

I'd be quite interested in one myself in fact for an installation I'm picking the items for soon in a sort of theatrical/gig venue. The question is whether to go for an LX7 and a bunch of outboard and skimp on the amps and cabs, or to go for a cheaper desk like this and get some better horns and bins and all that.

I know what "Ford Van" will say! ;)
Click to expand...

Noisedude-

The only drawback in general I have found using digital boards in places with low SPLs like some theater, corporate, and acoustic gigs is the "clunk" of moving faders when you change banks or scenes. It can be distracting to people sitting close.
:(
 
easychair said:
Noisedude-

The only drawback in general I have found using digital boards in places with low SPLs like some theater, corporate, and acoustic gigs is the "clunk" of moving faders when you change banks or scenes. It can be distracting to people sitting close.
:(
Click to expand...

Can't you disable the faders so they don't move from scene to scene?
 
easychair said:
Noisedude-

The only drawback in general I have found using digital boards in places with low SPLs like some theater, corporate, and acoustic gigs is the "clunk" of moving faders when you change banks or scenes. It can be distracting to people sitting close.
:(
Click to expand...
Good point. I'll bear that in mind ... it still seems like a good way of getting a bunch of setups saved without needing 32 channels and re-patching.
 
thedude400 said:
I too have really been eying this piece and posted a thread similar to this one. I was told that the upsides to this piece of equipment are the 24-bit depths and the motorized faders while the downsides are the crappy pre's (not enough gain and noisy), noisy AD converters, half-assed equalizers, crappy compression, and behringer's renowned tendency to break. I haven't had a chance to try this unit yet but I am going to try to. Sometimes Behringers higher priced stuff actually isn't too bad.

Maybe this mixer does stink. If so than that is a real bummer cause this is in my price range and I think I could really dig something like this.
Click to expand...
I'm going to buy one anyway for as cheap as i can. If it's shit, i'll sell it for dearer than i bought it therefore making money, lol :D
 
deepwater said:
CAnt believe I just typed all of that for a post from 12-26-2001
Click to expand...
Still helps people nowadays who are looking into getting one. Thanks for the post. :D
 
SonicAlbert said:
Can't you disable the faders so they don't move from scene to scene?
Click to expand...

Hmm..I guess I'd have to think about how that would work, and I don't know in any case.

I can see there being pluses and minuses to it, it's worth investigating.
 
easychair said:
Hmm..I guess I'd have to think about how that would work, and I don't know in any case.

I can see there being pluses and minuses to it, it's worth investigating.
Click to expand...

I think some but not all digital mixers have that option, to disable the moving faders.
 
SonicAlbert said:
I think some but not all digital mixers have that option, to disable the moving faders.
Click to expand...

Huh, learn something new every day. :)
 
I haven't heard the faders on this thing, in fact the only motorized faders I have used are on the Digidesign Control 24 and Sony Baby Oxford, both of which are far more expensive than the Behringer so I can't make any assumptions. I can't forsee the motor noises being a major problem though...?
 
I'm sure a little more familiarity and planning on my part would have helped a lot. I was working with a band that had a very dynamic set, and had to switch banks a lot to adjust levels, FX, and dynamics. During quiet sections and between songs, the "schunk" of the faders moving got me a few dirty and a few curious looks. At FOH, I am usually happiest if no one has a reason to remember I'm there.

So rather than a drawback, really, it's just something to be aware of and worked around, like most other things, I suppose. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top