Brick loses in showdown to Behringer. wtf?!

[scrubs]

i am kind of a novice at recording. go to:
http://www.myspace.com/rygiboges

if you care to hear what i've recorded. i do have a somewhat lo-fi work ethic--which might be why i differ from alot of you. everything on that site was recorded through my Behringer--so i'm guessing i'll get some criticism, which i welcome.

Well, Bob, I took a listen and I like what I'm hearing. I would have to say you are getting the most out of the gear you have and that's great. I still contend that the Brick is a far superior pre to the Behringers, but talent always shines through. Keep up the nice work.

 

[Hiwatt Bob]

thanks alot mr. scrubs. if you'd like free copies of my disc, just email me at the email in the post above. oh what the hell, here it is again:

ryan@skbinc.com

also, i hooked up the brick with a sennheiser E609 silver and mic'ed up an amp and it sounded pretty good. alot better than the SM57, but then again, the E609 is a much better mic for mic'ing guitar amps, a fuller sound all together.

 

[acorec]

I have had an old MX mixer, and the brick, DMP3, and a few others. The Brick is far and away better than the Behringer. They are not even in the same league. The Brick I had was absolutely wonderful. I hate to say this, but I think your ears may not be able to hear a good pre when you listen to one. That's harsh, but probably true. The components in both are like night and day. No way does a pre with the cheap components of the Behringer sound as good as a brick, not even close. If that were true, then you would find pros dumping their thousand dollar Great Rivers for 60 dollar MX series boards. What I am saying is, THERE IS NO OPINION ABOUT IT, the BEHRINGER DOES NOT SOUND EVEN CLOSE TO AS GOOD AS THE BRICK, and if you are thinking it does, then you have not been recording long enough!!

I'll post a sample of the Brick later tonight to show you what I mean.

That is your opinion and you would be 90% right. I have a ton of high end pre-amps and some mid, but only a few low end. I have on occasion just plugged mics into the board pre-amps because I am too lazy, or in a hurry. The only place I find a difference is when I try to mix alot of tracks. That is when a truly good pre-amp is a godsend. For 1 or 2 tracks, there is not much difference between a very good pre-amp and a board pre-amp (like Behringer, Mackie etc.) The difference would be like going between 2 low end pre-amps, 2 high end pre-amps or any combo. The point being that 2 different pre-amps could have 2 different types of sounds. That would be normal. I never found *any* pre-amp to jump out at me and immediatly sound "awesome". When you learn *what* to look for in a good pre-amp, then you will easily understand. When you mix tracks together and each track stands in the mix and *stays* in the mix without competition, then you know you have a decent pre-amp. When you fight every tooth and nail and your EQ knobs are twisted hopelessly off-center, you know you have a lousy pre-amp. Unfortunately, it is in the mixing stage that so many people find out the hard way. This also goes for cheap vs. expensive mics as well. It is very easy for people to brand me a "Gear Snob" but I have to shake my head when they stumble over the sqame problem time, and time again.

All this only happens when you have a great sounding source recorded in an acoustically correct room. If the room is fudged, all bets are off as to *any* pre-amp tests. The cheapset *could* sound better.

 

[xstatic]

Lots of strong opinions here. The only truth here is that the original poster has discovered that his Behringers preamps are working much better for him than he thought, and that his other new toys are not quite what he had hoped they might be.

Some people here have taken this to mean that Behringer is unfairly picked on and that in reality, it's incredible gear. This is a load of crap. One person's experiences do not make anything better or worse.

A couple people here want to say that the original poster may not have the ability to tell the difference. Or that there is no way that a behringer could create a sound that someone could prefer. This too is a load of crap.

There is no absolute rule. Bob may prefer the sound of the Behringer. Congrats Bob If you really do prefer it, than you have just found a cheap and easy way to be happy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I personally will not be rushing out to buy any Behringer, Mackie, or even a brick. In the end, cost does not always relate to quality. It is possible to get a good sound out of a $10 preamp. It just takes some real skills. It is also just as possible to get a putrid sound out of a $2000 preamp. It just takes a fair lack of skill to do it.

The real truth here is that we all have opinions and they are all based on different circumstances and different likes and dislikes (or perceptions). No ones opinion is invalid. I personally am not a huge Hardy or Avalon fan. However, I don't view the people who own them or like them in any sort of negative way. I personally just prefer different flavors.

Personally, if I were in Bob's shoes right now. I would immediately return one of the Bricks. Then I would hold on to the other for a little bit longer. You may really grow into it. We also tend to go through phases. I have been through a few phases now where I didn't like my 414's and put them on the shelf for a while. Then one day I finally pull them out and fall in love with them all over again

 

[chessrock]

When you mix tracks together and each track stands in the mix and *stays* in the mix without competition, then you know you have a decent pre-amp. When you fight every tooth and nail and your EQ knobs are twisted hopelessly off-center, you know you have a lousy pre-amp.

Going from my own experience ... I'm just going to have to say you're flat-out wrong with that. This kinda' stuff has almost nothing to do with the mic pre, and everything to do with how you're tracking. Mic pres don't compete with one another -- tracks do. If you can't get things to gel in a mix ... it's most likely because you made some poor tracking decisions along the way.

I'm sure you know where I'm going with this. The mic pre you select can play a role, certainly, but mostly in a supporting fashion. You can only expect so much out of it.

All this only happens when you have a great sounding source recorded in an acoustically correct room. If the room is fudged, all bets are off as to *any* pre-amp tests. The cheapset *could* sound better.

This I will agree with. If you're not starting with a quality source to begin with, then quality gear can actually work against you, as it can only serve to accurately reflect / shine a light on the inadequacies of your source and signal chain.

 

[jeff0633]

.[/QUOTE]That is your opinion and you would be 90% right. I have a ton of high end pre-amps and some mid, but only a few low end. I have on occasion just plugged mics into the board pre-amps because I am too lazy, or in a hurry. The only place I find a difference is when I try to mix alot of tracks. That is when a truly good pre-amp is a godsend. For 1 or 2 tracks, there is not much difference between a very good pre-amp and a board pre-amp (like Behringer, Mackie etc.).[/QUOTE]


Hmm, I'll have to say that you are only 80 percent right. You see, I once stepped up from a Behringer MX pre to a Great River, and the difference with only one track was IMMEDIATE AND HUGE. I could hear a massive difference in the 3d quality and transperency AS SOON AS I RAN my first signal through it. My heart quickened the first time I heard the signal of my acoustic guitar. So, I will have to say I disagree completely with the notion that you can hardly tell a difference with one track. I heard a massive difference.





.[/QUOTE]The point being that 2 different pre-amps could have 2 different types of sounds. That would be normal. I never found *any* pre-amp to jump out at me and immediatly sound "awesome". .[/QUOTE]

Then I would say that you may not know what to listen for, because I heard a massive difference with one track. Like Night and day.

 

[Hiwatt Bob]

i'd have to say that i probably was expecting to much from the preamps to begin with. i guess i just thought that the Behringers had to be crap and that something like the Brick would be some magic revelation. i kept the brick because after fooling with it using different mic's and in different mixes--i think it can offer something that the behringer can't. that said, i think there will be many instances where i'll prefer the behringer. and i'm certain the joemeek will be getting some playing time. but i agree with those that said i'll probably grow into the Brick more and more.

so much of this is subjective though, and depends on ears and style preference. my ears for example have been punished by Hiwatts for a little while now--which is truly a blessing from god.

anyhow, i'd again like to thank everyone for their input.

 

[Stefan Elmblad]

If you experience the Behringer as warm and fullsounding, stop putting money into preamps and start saving up for new monitors.

 

[T-RAVE]

I would take a great mic with an averege pre than an average to lousy mic and an awesome pre anyday.....

for my 2 cents I would rather put my coin into mics.....


I have recorded with some bottom of the barrel stuff and it turned out nice for my tin ears....

 

[omtayslick]

If you experience the Behringer as warm and fullsounding, stop putting money into preamps and start saving up for new monitors.

Got a laugh out of that one!

 

[omtayslick]

My personal experience is that I upgraded from Behringer MX pres to a DMP3.
Some people on the boards said there wouldn't be much difference. I ordered th DMP3 from Humbucker Jake and he said maybe it would take me a little while to hear the difference, but keep listening. HA!! I plugged it in and heard the difference immediately. So I'm not a fan of the Behri pres, but I made a few ok recordings with them. Whatever works for you.

 

[Hiwatt Bob]

hardy har har.

 

[Zed10R]

The only place I find a difference is when I try to mix alot of tracks. That is when a truly good pre-amp is a godsend. For 1 or 2 tracks, there is not much difference between a very good pre-amp and a board pre-amp (like Behringer, Mackie etc.)

When you mix tracks together and each track stands in the mix and *stays* in the mix without competition, then you know you have a decent pre-amp. When you fight every tooth and nail and your EQ knobs are twisted hopelessly off-center, you know you have a lousy pre-amp...../snip/...........All this only happens when you have a great sounding source recorded in an acoustically correct room. If the room is fudged, all bets are off as to *any* pre-amp tests. The cheapset *could* sound better.

I'm a little ashamed of myself for admitting this, but your little bits of wisdom there made so much sense to me I have just decided, right now after reading your post, to go buy a REAL pre-amp. I now have a clearer picture of how to improve my recordings and how accomplish my goals. Thank you.

 

[gachiman]

I use a Behringer MX2004a to mix drums for my recordings. I've always thought it did a great job for drums. I admit I've never experimented with guitar, bass, or vocals on this board. Most of my recordings are live, and I only have the ability to record 8 tracks at a time, and I like to use 7 - 8 mics on the drum kit alone. I got it for $75 used from an ad in the paper, and honestly, that was the best $75 I've ever spent.

 

[Supercreep]

Try stacking 15-20 tracks together with both and you'll see the difference.

 

[NL5]

my two cents -

You are way oversimplifying the "equation" in your testing method. First, I would like the hear the samples - dull and lifeless to some can be "warmth" to someone else. Secondly, if your source isn't the greatest (like DI electric) or your room stinks, a better preamp is just going to show the suck factor in better detail. Thirdly, if you send the signal thru a crappy converter, it's really not going to show as much difference either. Fourth, the brick and the joe meek aren't exactly "high end" - they are a step up from crap though. Lastly, if you think a GR or a Neve or whatever is gonna be a magic bullet, and turn a crappy engineer into a good one, I got a bridge for sale....

That being said, some cheap gear is certainly usable, and you can get decent results. There is also the law of diminishing return - the last few inches in fidelity start costing a lot more - A LOT MORE - and the differences become smaller and smaller

 

[zradioman]

Brick owner for a year

I never use the brick on just my voice (even though that's what I bought it for) I was going to part with it, (beacause my GT mic sounded great through the Delta 1010 pre) but I decided to run each side of a stereo image mix through it seperatly and reasemble it in the mix. . .I'm in radio, and all I can say about the Brick. . .It has a knack for making the voice stand out and glide through the mix. . .it also compliments all the B.S. the put on the signal before it goes out the door. . .shiny, yet creamy. . .

 

[Rodger Hartlett]

Try stacking 15-20 tracks together with both and you'll see the difference

that is the real point. i don't think the brick would stack up well if used on every track.
RNP works fine when stacking/tracking .

 

[MadMax]

that is the real point. i don't think the brick would stack up well if used on every track.
RNP works fine when stacking/tracking .

Im having trouble grasping this. Although I've heard it more than once it just doesn't make sense to me. I would think that any mic/pre would have a sonic signature that would compound and stand out if you stack enough of them.
Now if the pre sounds bad or extreme. I can see where that particular sound wouldn't be good after a few instances. But for reference, I don't think I would want every track to have a Neumann/Neve signature either.

 

[warble]

Try stacking 15-20 tracks together with both and you'll see the difference.

...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.