behringer pres?

lucid

New member
i know i know i said that bad word. sorry.

but seriously, are they any good? all the ultragain models and such.

and how is the 'ultra-di'? it's so cheap that even if it provides an OK sound it may still an asset on some tracks. anyone used it?

thanks for any info...

oh, and btw... i am comparing the behringer pres with the m-audio dmp3
 
I use the Behringer DI and it's indeed quite usable. Cannot say very much about their pres, apart from the shitty ones in my behringer mixer.

David
 
having never used any other pres tho i can't tell how bad the ones on my behringer mixer are...

but thanks for the info on the DI!
 
The Behringer pre's sound as good as the Mackie pre's (because they are a knockoff of the Mackie pre's). I've heard many people complain about Behringer's poor build quality, but I've never had a problem with my Composer Pro's or my Ultra Voice Pro (which is a knockoff of the Focusrite 17 knob "all in one box" vocal preamp/compressor/deEsser/gate). Maybe I'm just lucky...
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
Sorry... no... that's not true at all...

Agreed. The Mackie VLZ PRO pres is what I'd consider "min. preamp quality" and the pres in Behringer's mixers certainly don't meet that requirement. With that said, in the past, I've had success with their 1953 pre with Mullard CV4004s in place of the stock Sovteks!
 
Bruce (Blue Bear), out of curiousity how much better were the
original Mackie pre's than the Eurodesk series?
Supposedly, the newest Bearinger's (sorry couldn't resist!) are
better than the old-no that it's that difficult.

Chris
 
I haven't heard any direct comparisons with the original Mackie and Behringer pres, but even so, I can already tell you that one of the MAJOR problems with Behringer pres is that most (all?) have a max. input of only +12dBu!!! The 1953 only has +10dBu!!! But knowing that, I was able to select mics with low-sensitivity or use the 1953 on quiet sources or with mics far way. No close miking drums (or maybe even using them as overheads) with high-sensitivity mics and any Behringer pre!!!

I think the original Mackie VLZ pres had +14dBu? Maybe? Still sucks! You could hear the sound completely change to extremely harsh and nasty when you pushed them; which can be a cool thing, but NOT the case with Mackie. The Mackie 8-Bus Series pres still only have +14dBu (which is why I refuse to ever use one)!!! The Mackie XDR pres in their VLZ PRO have a max. input of +22dBu... Now we're talking... But they still don't have a consistant sound up to their max. input. And yeah, they "kinda" can handle a high-sensitivity close mic on drums, but they sure can't touch my DaviSound "Mic-All" pres with a max. input of 32 dBV ("sound" aside)!
 
I haven't measured specifically but if I'm not mistaken, the 8-buss series are spec'd for +28 dbu.... BUT - that doesn't mean they are linear up to that level, as RE pointed out!
 
hey Bluebear, and others. You say the mackie pre's are kinda bottom of the line passable, Like you wouldn't use anything worse. Are you saying this beacuse of their sound, or how clean they are and how well they work?

Would you say that the soundcraft pres sound better/are better? I mean in the spirit m series, i guess they're ghost pre's?
 
ambi said:
hey Bluebear, and others. You say the mackie pre's are kinda bottom of the line passable, Like you wouldn't use anything worse. Are you saying this beacuse of their sound, or how clean they are and how well they work?

Would you say that the soundcraft pres sound better/are better? I mean in the spirit m series, i guess they're ghost pre's?
I don't know how to answer that -- I've gotten good results with Mackie pres.... but I don't use them for all tracks in a project.

The only way to compare is to track a project entirely WITH Mackie pres and then the same project with something else and compare the end results.

Better pres usually result in tracks that are more open/airy sounding, with clear definition... poorer pres, overall on a project, result in loss of track/frequency definition.

Specifically, in A/B comparisons, I've found Behringer pres to be noisier and constricted-sounding compared to Mackies.... and I haven't heard anything good (by anyone who's opinion I trust) about Behringer's outboard pres...

The only direct experience I have with Soundcraft is a small-format Folio mixer from a number of years back... as I recall it was a pleasantly warm-sounding board.
 
Blue Bear. I haven't done any measuring what-so-ever myself on this. I'm just going by what their specs. say; +14dBu (+28dBu is the max. main bus output, like all current Mackie mixers). Also, the 8-Bus and original VLZ preamp max. input does seem to correlate with what I hear from them too.

http://www.mackie.com/record/8bus/8Busspecs.html

lucid, Behringer's T1953 is the only outboard preamp I've used from them. Their MIC2200 is the same deal as the T1953. Only +10dBu max. input. Their VX2000 specs. put the max. input only at +11.5 dBu. While specs. usually don't tell you shit, this is one of the rare times it does... That's what I've found at least.

The truth is, with the T1953 with Mullard CV4004s, I found rather satisfactory most of the time. It just means you need to be extra cautious of the mics you're using and on what source. The best thing to do is to figure-out and know just very roughly, the voltage coming-out of your mic(s), at that distance, on that source.

ambi, Mackie XDR preamps in their VLZ PRO mixers is what I consider "min. preamp quality". What I mean when I say that is that when someone is asking what preamp to buy when they're upgrading from the pres in their couple hundred dollar 4-8 ch. PCI card-to-breakout box, or all-in-one digital mixer/recorder, or something along those lines, at least the quality of the Mackie VLZ PRO Series is what I recommend they upgrade to. This ensures improvement rather than a side-step when buying preamps for under $1k (for the most part).

Yes, there are a couple other options in the under $1k range, such as the ART Tube MP and and Joe Meek stuff, but I certainly have never considered those "improvements" over the Mackie XDR pres! In fact, odds are, you'll have better luck with the XDR pres over the other two most of the time. Holds true at least for Joe Meek. Their pres have never been anything to write home about. In fact, they've always seemed to leave me hungry for more in their "sound", most of the time! Although, they ARE with the program and have a +30dBu max. input! Alright!!! I only turn to Joe Meek for their compression.

Then there's the Studio Projects VTB1. As a general statement, I wouldn't consider it an "improvement" over the Mackie 1202 VLZ PRO, but it's certainly A LOT more versatile with it's "sounds", and that can be an considered quite an improvement!

There's also the new FMR RNP. While I haven't heard it, I don't doubt one bit that it's an improvement over the Mackie XDR pres and worth its price. I like it's +27.5dBu max. input too!

So, all of these preamps mentioned really are what I consider "min. preamp quality" if doing recordings that you're somewhat serious about; stuff you'll be doing something with, more than simply sharing little ideas with your family and friends. Which one to go for is simply up to the number of channels you need and your budget.
 
Last edited:
Recording Engineer said:
Blue Bear. I haven't done any measuring what-so-ever myself on this. I'm just going by what their specs. say; +14dBu (+28dBu is the max. main bus output, like all current Mackie mixers). Also, the 8-Bus and original VLZ preamp max. input does seem to correlate with what I hear from them too.
My mistake... I mixed up their buss output spec with mic input spec!
 
As for Soundcraft, the only current mixer I've heard is the Ghost. I haven't played with it much though. I do think the ProMic pres are pretty nice. Certainly as nice sounding, if not a bit better sounding, than the Mackie XDR preamp. But I've never tried pushing the ProMic pres to their limit (only +14dBu max. input). I suspect they'd crumble under a high-sensitivity mic close on a drum.

See, a big key is just in knowing a mic preamp's limitations! With that in mind and sticking with the "min. preamp quality", coupled with a decent mic, you CAN achieve some steller results!
 
I haven't either. But chances are, you won't do any better with it than with the Behringer outboard preamps or their mixer preamps. In fact, you'd probably be better-off with the Behringer T1953 with Mullard CV4004s. And if you're looking for a preamp to upgrade what you have in your PCI card-to-breakout box, or all-in-one digital mixer/recorder, or something along those lines, more than likely, you'd just be making a side-step with the DMP3.

Again, I say that without have ever hearing the thing. This is only my assumption. I hope I'm wrong... But I doubt I'm too far off.
 
bruce: the things lists for USD499! and i can't afford that. and there is a rather large possibility that I won't be able to find a dealer for FMR's gear here...

RE: so you don't think that i will notice a difference if i compared that DMP3 with the preamps on my behringer mixer. i just want something cleaner and a little more open. and i don't have a lot of money; just splurged on my new mackie monitors. they are nice.
 
Back
Top