Behringer t1953 Ultrgain

  • Thread starter Thread starter C. Lewis
  • Start date Start date
C

C. Lewis

New member
Dear recordists:
Has anyone used this mic pre-amp? I saw Guitar Center has it listed for under $400, while everyone else on the planet seems to put it around $650. For under 4, it seems like a great deal. Better than the 2 Tube MPs I was thinking of buying.

--Chandler
 
Wow.. I never looked at this product because I assumed it was in a much higher price range! I'll take two!

- Rich
 
Out of amusement, I looked at this one too. Read the specs carefully before you leap, and do some careful listening. The Behringer tube preamps (including the Ultragain Pro Mic2200, which appears to have the same circuit design as the T1953) have a big hole in their specs.

CMRR (Common Mode Rejection Ratio, an extremely important figure of merit for noise immunity for mic pres):

For the T1953, from their web page: "Typical 40dB, >55dB@1kHz".
For the Mackie XDR preamps from their boards (a nice middle-of the road preamp): ">90 dB".
For the ART Tube MP: ">75dB typ @1kHz".

Equivalent input noise is also fairly gnarly: -108dBu, versus -129dBu for both the Mackie and the ART, and -134dBu for a Focusrite Platinum (just for an example of a slightly higher-buck box).

If Behringer can only manage 40dB CMRR as they claim, the noise floor of this box is likely to be dominated with 60Hz hum and other EMI cruft, and not the self-noise of your nice mics. IMNSHO, this is pretty poor performance for a mic preamp. From the specs this sounds like it's doomed to be a pretty noisy box.

The box may well actually sound interesting, and color the signal in an interesting and useful way- but if these specs are correct, it's really only likely to be useful as an effects box, and not as a particularly desirable mic pre. I sure as heck wouldn't use it in preference to the preamps in my Alesis Studio 32, for example. At least they can do 88dB CMRR. 2 dB I won't quibble over, but I think that I could hear a 50dB difference even on my stone-deaf days!

I believe that this is a very important spec for computer recording, with big switching power supplies and CRT deflection yokes beaming EMI hash all over the control room. Your mileage may vary. I could be completely wrong, but those *are* their published numbers, not mine. In any case, if you are considering this for your first way-cool standalone preamp, IMNSHO you should listen to it _very critically_ (and ideally in your environment!) before forking over the cash. Caveat emptor...
 
Whew. Thanks for the critique. Your post is exactly why I wondered if anyone had A/B'ed this to something like the art. I look at the spec's sometimes and wonder how significant such #s are to someone like me (who routinely cranks my once-busted-neckt SG thru the overdrive just to get the fucked up buzzing sound my Peavey likes to make). But now I got a reason to go listen to it a bit more closely.
 
I just reread what I wrote, and it sounds pretty damning, Which in retrospect is pretty freakin' arrogant of me, given that I haven't personally heard the box... Yeesh!

Don't let me convince you to not buy it, for sure. Do give it a fair audition, and ideally A/B it against some other boxes in person. What I'm really trying to say is "go into it with eyes (and ears) wide open, based on those specs"...
 
Good topic, Skippy.
What I don't know is: what does the difference between .0007% and .01% THD sound like ?
What does the difference between -109 dBu and -193 dBu sound like ?
Of course more noise and distortion cant possibly be GOOD, but I suspect that all of these noise and distortion specs are like fleas riding on the back of a 6000 pound elephant (the background noise of the studio, and the self noise of the microphones) and arguing over who is contributing more to the elephant's weight. The fact that most vintage "holy grail" equipment doesn't have nearly as good specs as modern "low-end" equipment also makes me curious.

I really don't know. I wish there was a good discussion of this. If you see one, please let us know.

Rick
 
I'd like to see that, too- especially if it could be held to something resembling solid technical grounds, and not religion... I haven't, yet, but if I do I'll let you know.

So what the hell- let's start one here. What can go wrong? (;-)

I personally don't pay much attention to distortion specs any more. Very few vendors really measure them, and if they do, it's not clear under what circumstances... Many tube and solid-state preamps these days have a knob on the front labeled "warmth", and it really ought to be labeled "throw our advertised distortion figures out the window". I'm kind of a throwback, I guess- it bothers me a little bit that distortion is now considered a big selling point, and called "color" (;-). Well, when in Rome, be a Roman candle, I guess. Some distortion is good, and is called color, and damned if I can tell how they can square that big ol' "warmth" knob with the ".0000003% THD" or whatever spec they publish... So I ignore them. I probably couldn't hear it anyway, as old as my ears are getting.

Noise, on the other hand, is an extremely annoying thing under any circumstances: I *can* hear that, and I can't ignore it- now or ever. There are two flavors to worry about. There's EMI/environmental hash, and self-noise (thermal noise from the resistors in the input stage and from the active devices that follow them). You can't do anything about the thermal noise, unless you flood the control room with liquid nitrogen. Good for keeping the beer cold, but it's *hell* on the tape-ops (;-). Ultimately, the EIN is simply a function of the circuit topology and the ambient temperature. It's generally a very pinkish, broadband, moderately inoffensive thing to have as your noise floor.

The CMRR spec numbers, on the other hand, give you an idea about what sort of behavior a preamp will exhibit in a real-world setup with a mic plugged in, with all that EMI hash floating around the room. My experience over the years has been that a poor CMRR will lead to all manner of unpleasantness (excessive susceptibility to ground loop noise, CRT noise, power supply induction noise, and just flat-out *jit*), and that if the CMRR is too low, the EIN specs are rendered completely moot. Why? As soon as you plug a mic cable in and turn the monitors up, the common mode crud will absolutely swamp the thermal noise of the preamp. You'll never be able to hear it for the hum, crackle, buzz, and crud. At that point the EIN truly *is* a flea on the back of the elephant! Common-mode EMI noise is _never_ inoffensive: it is almost always pitched, and as such it "sticks up" above a pinkish noise floor. The human brain zooms right in on pitched artifacts.

Cool EIN specs (big negative numbers) are great, of course- but if you can't ever get there because all the electromagnetic crud in the room is stomping on even your best starquad mic cable and crawling into the signal path, you're well and truly screwed (IMHO, of course). I record a lot of acoustic music, and the noise floor (and the _character_ of the noise floor) is of great importance to me. Your mileage may vary...

The bottom line for me is that the Behringer box in question specs out *much* worse than a basic Mackie preamp from their cheapest, most entry-level board. Shoot, maybe it actually sounds like tits on a Ritz in practice, but I can't see how. It seems to me to be sort of sad to fork over nearly the same price as a small Mackie mixer for a 2-channel standalone preamp that has a very good chance to be much, much noisier, without listening to it _very_ carefully first: thus, my "caveat emptor". I believe, based on the specs, that this should not require anything resembling golden ears to hear the difference- especially if there's a CRT in the room!

Of course, since I'm the guy who shot my mouth off about it, I should hike over to Guitar Satan and try to talk them into letting me A/B this box with a little Mackie: two TLM103s, two 25-foot mic cables, two stands, and a pair of nice headphones. I'm intrigued enough about it to want to find out for myself.

Normally, 3-4dB in the noise floor would be damned near impossible to discern. -129dBu versus -134dBu EIN would have you straining hard to hear any difference at all, unless there was a basic difference in the *character* of the noise itself (a different frequency distribution between the two, or perhaps popcorn-dominated shot/impulse noise versus pink/white broadband). It'd be a right bitch to pick out 4dB in a blind test, so you're right. That's not a showstopper, and I probably should have left it out of my post altogether.

On the other hand, I absolutely do believe a 50dB difference in CMRR would stand out like a sore thumb once a mic was plugged in. If there's one flourescent light on in the room, you'll hear it: it should absolutely dominate the noise floor. It'd blow my mind if that box could achieve anywhere _close_ to its specified S/N when used in a room with a computer or a flourescent light in it.

That's my take, anyhoo. Most of it is pretty damned hard to hear- except anything that lets EMI in. Whaddaya think?

[Edited by skippy on 12-09-2000 at 17:49]
 
Good info !
I own the Mackie 1202VLZ Pro, but I quit using it and started using the M-Audio DMP2, because it sounded more "natural" to me. The Mackie sounds very "clear" but a little unnaturally so, as if the higher freqs are boosted a little. The DMP2 beats it in many direct A/B tests...but that isn't noise.

I own quite a few Behringer boxes (not the preamp) and so I am interested in Behringer quality in general. They seem to reuse the same circuits in many of their models. Since i also record acoustic music, I am very worried about noise floor. The first thing i do when i get a new piece is plug it in, jack up the volume and listen to silence, to see if it is adding to the mike/room. So far , no problems, but my room (back bedroom) is not all that quiet, and the hard disk of my VS1680 is the noisiest thing around !

I think I will start making a table of preamp specs. The other thing i want to do is make sure I am comparing specs properly. Some quote the equivalent noise on the A weighting scale, and some just at a a parrticular frequency, or unweighted over the 20-20K band, so it is hard to meaningfully compare. Also, I think the 108 dB on the Behringer is Signal to Noise, not EIN. I would have to check to be sure, but 108 S/N is pretty good (dbx 786 is only 104 dB).

Peace,
Rick
 
I've been using Behringer Eurorack 602A mixers as dual channel pre amps. They do a pretty good job, but when I add a delta 10/10 card in here, I hardly want to go buy 4 more mixing boards. I'm thinking of throwing together an 8 pack of half-decent pre-amps with 48V phantom power into a little metal box, and seing what kind of money taiwan wants for turning them out.

I think the home-audio community could really use something like that.
 
MORE INFO

Just checking the specs on the T1953 vs. The Mackie VLZ PRO

T1953 VLZ PRO
S/N >108 dB >88 dB (gains at unity)
EIN Not cited -129.5 dBm (at insert out)
Freq.Resp. 18-30K ±3dB 20-60K +0/-1 dB
CMMR >40 dB,>55 dB @ 1 kHz. >90dB @ 1 kHz.
Zin 3 KOhm 1.3 KOhm

Notice that it is hard to get apples-apples, because Mackie cites soime of their specs at the Insert out point, which is unbalanced and therfore more susceptable to ambient noise pickup. After going through the mixer (gains set to unity) the S/N is only 88 dB, which isn't very good. The T1953 doesn't cite the EIN of the preamp op-amp alone, but the S/N through the entire box is 108 dB, which is justifiably called "low noise" and although the CMRR is worse, it uses balanced outputs which are more resistant to ambient noise pickup. The higher input impedance of the T1953 is probably less lossey to the microphone signal, but again, at a potential increase in input noise, depending on the environment.

Bottom line: No question that the Mackie is good, and perhaps better, but the T1953 doesn't look BAD when all things are considered, especially the overall 108 dB S/N ratio.

For personal reference, I also checked the DMP2, which I like better than the Mackie. Its' frequency response is an incredible ± 0.1 dB over the audible band, but its S/N is only 85 dB and THD is .0065 %. Input impedance is 3KOhm.

any other insight appreciated.
Rick
(I just noticed that the Table above didn't come outt as well-aligned as when I typed it in. Sorry. Try to interpret it anyway !!)
 
I went back and checked their web site- you're right, I had mistranscribed S/N as EIN when I was making my notes. Mia culpa.

However, you write: "although the CMRR is worse, it uses balanced outputs which are more resistant to ambient noise pickup". Remember the definition of CMRR: it is the most direct measurement of precisely _how good_ the balanced _input_ is at rejecting common mode noise. By the time you get to the output of the unit, injection of common-mode noise is far less a problem: the signal is by definition already at line level, and the contribution of common-mode noise will be significantly lessened as a result. It is at the input, *prior* to the 40-60dB of gain provided by the mic preamp, that common-mode rejection is at its most important- and in my experience, it is extremely important.

"The T1953 doesn't look BAD when all things are considered, especially the overall 108 dB S/N ratio". My point is that with such a poor CMRR, you are unlikely to be able to actually realize that S/N ratio in practice when using this item as a mic preamp. The two don't stack up: a good S/N spec'd with a lousy CMRR? It's a good thing that they spec'd the S/N at unity gain- it must have been in an elecrtically pristine environment, too. I simply cannot believe that you can achieve anywhere near 108dB S/N at 60dB overall gain in the electrically-noisy real world with an input stage that specs like that one.

The entire purpose of my postings was to point out the direct impact of the CMRR spec on the overall utility of the device. I don't think that it is wise to casually disregard its impact: I think that Behringer is playing specmanship games, here, and that my "caveat emptor" is warranted. Frankly, it blows my mind that they would even *release* such a poor spec, but they have it in several places. I could certainly be wrong, but only an audition will tell the tale.

My local guitar satan doesn't have these, so I was thwarted there when I stopped in today. Let me know if you manage to audition one, and I'll keep looking as well.
 
Skippy:
Good point about the CMRR spec, you are right. It is the INPUT that counts on CMRR. Mea gravitas culpa.
It was the VLZ pro that was spec'd at unity gain (the Table is hard to interpret). The T1953 is spec'd at max gain.
I am just speculating here, but I wonder if the better CMRR of the Mackie is also associated with its low input impedance. I think we could lower the CMRR to -XXX if we short the inputs !

I don't really know what it means in practice. I guess it means use very well shielded mike cables if you buy a Behringer. I guess these questions are why some people give up on specs entirely and start listening to everything very critically. Of course most of us don't have the opportunity to hear and compare everything there is. It would be very interesting to do an A/B compare of this. In my own little studio, I can't hear any difference in electronic noise floor through all my boxes chained in series ! (unles I lower the compressor thresholds dramatically )

Peace,
Rick
 
Unfortunately, a lot of this discussion is over my head, but I do want to point out that the T1953 INTENTIONALLY distorts it's input to gain their characteristic "warm" sound.. I'm not sure, but I don't think these figures take that into account. What are the figures like on joe-meek equipment(another brand that does the same thing)?
 
Good question !
Joe Meek doesn't publish very informative specs on their web page. THD <.01 % is all I got.
It seems to me that some of the manufacturers who want to establish an "aura of mystical quality" about their equipment deliberately keep the specs obscured because they may not stand up to critical scrutiny.

The T1953 does indeed deliberately add "warmth". But It should also be able to turn the warmth (tube saturation) down or off. Again, it is obscure whether the specs apply to "tubes on" or "tubes off" mode. It seems like the CMRR should be independent of whatever else it does to the signal intentionally or not. But again...just speculating.
As usual, if it sounds good...specs become meaningless.

Another example: The prestigious Avalon 737sp:
EIN: -116 dB unweighted, THD <.5% (! yes point 5, with no zeros in front !)
No S/N listed
No CMRR Listed

Peace,
Rick
 
Yeah.. I use a lot of "shitty" equipment that has proven itself to me. It really depends what your final product is supposed to be.
 
The only place where specifications have ever seemed to really make a audible difference to me is in frequency response. As I mentioned, I really like the M-Audio DMP2 preamp, which is (claimed) flat to within ±0.1 dB
I also use Earthworks mikes, which are ±0.5 dB across and beyond the audible spectrum. I know that other mikes and preamps sound "good", but I like my stuff to sound "accurate" as in faithfully reproducing the original sound. And I can hear the difference in these two products. (even though the DMP2 is a pathetic piece of crap mechanically !)
I wish they would beef up the case, buttons and knobs. I would gladly pay $600 fo DMP2 electronics in an Avalon Box !
In fact, if you start looking at the cost of heavy aluminum knobs and faceplates, that alone probably accounts for most of the difference. (Avalon usually about $2000)

Peace,
Rick
 
Back
Top