Brick loses in showdown to Behringer. wtf?!

[Gamelan]

I agree that the behri pres have a somewhat veiled sound, but not as bad as some would make them out to be. They are surely intended more for live work, but it's nice you can record with them too. Noisy? lifeless? Hardly. They sound fine. Obviously a cheap board preamp isn't going to stand up to the transparency of an outboard costing 50 times as much, doesn't matter who makes the board. Which makes me wonder about the playback situation. If the playback isn't up to snuff it will be hard to tell much difference between mic pres either way.

 

[gemsbok]

behringer is cheap budget so is the brick. the brick is cheap and has a tube . so what^ is that supposed to mean magic warmth? now get back to recording. my tube mp will beat your blue tube l.o.l.

 

[NL5]

...and then there's people around here that would say this is BS. Not me, but I guess everyone has an opinion about the matter.

Try getting good, clean, crisp highs out of a cheap pre/converter setup.

 

[MadMax]

Try getting good, clean, crisp highs out of a cheap pre/converter setup.

This I can accept. It's subjective. But I maintain that stacking any kind of mic/pre will imprint it's signature and you'll have the same kind of problem whether it's Behringer or Neve.

 

[NL5]

This I can accept. It's subjective. But I maintain that stacking any kind of mic/pre will imprint it's signature and you'll have the same kind of problem whether it's Behringer or Neve.

Do you have any idea how many GREAT sounding albums were done on one console? (all the pres being the same)

 

[MadMax]

Do you have any idea how many GREAT sounding albums were done on one console? (all the pres being the same)

Yes I do. So the point about preamps layering and muddying up the sound is kind of a fallacy then isn't it?
Of course, if it's a bad mic or pre sound to begin with, then nothing's going to fix it, but I'm assuming the Behringer's are being run clean and not overdriven or with any whacky EQ extremes.
My experience is mostly with the budget stuff; Mackie, Behringer, Allen & Heath, Symetrix. But I've heard API, Neve & Great River. To me, the higher end stuff has more color to it. Point is, if you run the budget stuff clean, it can be pretty transparent and have no audible signature that builds as you layer. And this is especially true when you use different mics and sources. They all interact to create a unique sound. So if you used the same pre for everything and you recorded a guitar with a 57 and a vocal with a C-414 and a kik drum with a D-112, the sound of the pre isn't going to get in the way of it's self. You might hear it in a clinical side by side test. But I record all my drum mics thru an A&H MixWiz and so far, it hasn't been an issue for me.

 

[tkingen]

Point is, if you run the budget stuff clean, it can be pretty transparent and have no audible signature that builds as you layer. And this is especially true when you use different mics and sources. They all interact to create a unique sound.

I used to have a Mackie 1604vlz and found the pres to be clean. However, IMHO they also homogenized the sound of the mics to some degree. When I started using other pres the differences in the mics became more apparent.
That's not to say that there is anything wrong with a 1604vlz or any other cheaper pre. People make good sounding recordings with them all the time.

 

[Soundmind??]

Just keep in mind that a $2000 mic pre with a $200 mic and $150 monitors through a $100 a/d/d/a converter will make the cheaper items sound like the best cheap gear around. Weakest link thing ya know. Good music and good accoustics are indeed the most import input source, but I agree with those who challenge the validity of these A/B comparisons. I can assure you that an inexpensive monitor will not reveal the strengths of high end gear. Try to do the same type of comparison with a $5 pair of headphones from radio shack and a $100 pair of AKG headphones.