Powering Behringer C1

  • Thread starter Thread starter dorkbydesign
  • Start date Start date
D

dorkbydesign

New member
I've just gotten a Behringer C1 and didn't realise it needed to be powered.

So I've researched a little bit. I live in Australia and I can get the Behringer Mic100 or Mic200 for roughly the same price. I can also get a 48v DC power supply for roughly the same cost too.

So how would I go about powering it and connecting it to my iMac? Would I need an audio interface or just a jack converter?

Your help is appreciated!
Thanks,
x.dorky
 
You need something that provides a source of 48v phantom power. The Behringer Mic100 and Mic200 do this and there are also adaptors that simply provide phantom.

However, I'd have to suggest that your best bet would be to buy a proper audio interface that also provides phantom--there are lots out there. I have personal knowledge of the the M-Audio Mobile Pre and Fast Track but there are tons of others equally good.

I say this because the standard mic input on a computer--including an iMac--is really not up to any serious recording use. They're more suitable for a cheap headset mic for Skype or whatever but can be pretty noisy when you're doing proper recording.
 
Bobbsy said:
You need something that provides a source of 48v phantom power. The Behringer Mic100 and Mic200 do this and there are also adaptors that simply provide phantom.

However, I'd have to suggest that your best bet would be to buy a proper audio interface that also provides phantom--there are lots out there. I have personal knowledge of the the M-Audio Mobile Pre and Fast Track but there are tons of others equally good.

I say this because the standard mic input on a computer--including an iMac--is really not up to any serious recording use. They're more suitable for a cheap headset mic for Skype or whatever but can be pretty noisy when you're doing proper recording.
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for your reply! I'm currently looking into the M-Audio Mobile Pre.

Also, can you just tell if XLR connections provide better sound quality or is just for ease of use?
 
dorkbydesign said:
Also, can you just tell if XLR connections provide better sound quality or is just for ease of use?
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

Connectors in themselves don't affect the sound quality. However, an XLR is a connector used for balanced audio which is far more resistant to outside electrical interference than an unbalanced circuit (which would typically use a mini jack or RCA/Phono connector). So, if you're running a short cable in an electrically quiet area you probably wouldn't notice a difference...but as cables get longer or if you run past an arcing thermostat or whatever, the balanced circuit (using XLRs) will earn it's keep.

XLRs have a few other things going for them. First off, they're the standard connector for any decent quality mics--so once you have an interface with an XLR input you can indulge your newly found gear acquisition syndrome. Don't worry if you don't think you have gear acquisition syndrome..you soon will!

Second, you'll find that you need to use XLRs to use phantom power for your mic. Even though you could (in theory) use a 3 pole jack for a balanced mic, the way those make their connection makes them unsafe for phantom--so the 48v is never provided on a jack input.

Finally, an XLR is a locking connector so no fear of it being accidentally pulled out mid-take.

Sorry to provide a long answer to a quick, simple question but hopefully you can see that there's more to it than meets the eye!
 
When it comes to connectors for microphones, there were many different designs used in the past for balanced lines, not only the now almost universal XLR connector, which, interestingly, had originally been designed to be used as an unbalanced stereo connector mainly for professional record players. It's the reason for the name: X = Common (ground), L = Left, R = Right. The pins are numbered in the same sequence.
In Germany and much of Europe professional microphone connectors were originally made by a company named Tuchel, and these connectors resembled the XLR connectors (but are larger) and had threaded sleeves and used flat pins. These were used by most professional audio manufacturers like Telefunken, Sennheiser, Beyer, AKG, Siemens, Neumann etc. Later the 3-pin DIN connector was used (also with threaded locking rings) to connect smaller size microphones. The 5-pin version was used for stereo microphones.
There is also a miniature version of the XLR connectors, which is mainly used with radio microphones and instrument transmitters and receivers (belt packs).
The Japanese market used their own design connectors as well as foreign types.
The advantage of the XLR connectors is their easy availability and relatively low cost combined with usually decent quality and reliability. Beware, however, of some of the cheap versions, which have inferior quality contacts and can be quite unreliable. Jack connectors are not very popular in professional studio applications, except for connecting headphones and as an option for line level connectors.
 
Nice copy and paste job midimogul...but you're discussing standardisation that was resolved by the early to mid 1970s and is of little or no relevance to home studio folks today.

(I know this because I lived through the multiplicity of connectors and different standards for XLR wiring.)
 
There's also the matter of addresing the O.P.'s questions. Thanks for doing that Bobbsy.
As another antipodean resident I say go with a good interface & the XLR is worth the extra effort as it is the industry and consumer standard for recording.
I have a C1 and a Behri Mic100 and they work together very well, (I bought the pre when I was using tape and then an older difital interface that didn't have full 48v). The Mic100 works fairly well with a variety of other mics and better than another pre I have BUT I now have an 1/2 decent interface with nice preamps & full phantom power so I only need the Mic100 when I'm using more mics than the interface provides preamps & phantom for. Decent mic into decent interface means the preamp/phantom source shouldn't be necessary.
 
midimogul said:
When it comes to connectors for microphones, there were many different designs used in the past for balanced lines, not only the now almost universal XLR connector, which, interestingly, had originally been designed to be used as an unbalanced stereo connector mainly for professional record players. It's the reason for the name: X = Common (ground), L = Left, R = Right. The pins are numbered in the same sequence.
Click to expand...

No, Cannon made a series of connectors, the X series, including a version with a Locking mechanism and a Resilient polychloroprene compound insulating piece holding the pins in place. The R has been retained even though no other manufactures used resilient polychloroprene compound.

XLR History
 
I have the Behringer MIC800 and it's quite nice. It provides 48V and accepts either an XLR or 1/4'' in, but it still needs a separate interface of some sort to pipe it into the computer. It comes with a variety of "preamp modeling" settings which actually don't change the audio that much, but they do seem to have some small effect. However, at their current price, I would be tempted to simply pay a little more and get the Q802USB mixer, which will give you all of your mixer and phantom power settings, as well as give you a USB connection into the computer to record with.
 
OP, you got plenty of good advice about the phantom power and interfaces. A full interface also lets you plug in an instrument with a 1/4" cable, and some also have midi in/out. You have more options with an interface, not to mention a way to get it into a computer/daw.

The xlr cable's main advantage (along with the many others) is they can run longer distances without measurable signal loss that you would have with 1/4" cables. When you get over 20-25' runs, you really need xlr cables, with an appropriate adapter at each end if necessary, depending on what you're connecting to.
 
RustyMetal said:
The xlr cable's main advantage (along with the many others) is they can run longer distances without measurable signal loss that you would have with 1/4" cables. When you get over 20-25' runs, you really need xlr cables, with an appropriate adapter at each end if necessary, depending on what you're connecting to.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no. An XLR is just a connector and any balanced circuit would be identical in performance--the most common "other" connector being a quarter inch TRS. It's also not a case of "signal loss". That would be a function of the cable but, with any decent shielded twisted pair you can go literally miles without appreciable loss. The bigger advantage of a balanced circuit is its ability to to resist outside electrical interference. I'll let you Google "balanced vs. unbalanced" but basically the system allows any added interference to be cancelled out at the receiving end.

There are a couple of very specific advantages of using XLRs, particularly for microphone circuits.

First, unlike a quarter in system, all three pins make contact at the same time. This is important when using phantom power because one thing you do NOT want is for phantom to go up only one leg even for a brief time--this can damage your expensive microphones. If you think about how a TRS connector is plugged in, the Tip briefly touches the contact for the Ring, then loses that, then makes a new connection with its own contact as the Ring slots into its connector.

The other big advantage for anything "mission critical" is that XLRs are locking connectors that won't be pulled out by tugs on the cable and so on. You realise how important this is when somebody yanks on a cable terminated in TRS and you lose your monitors or keyboard feed or whatever!
 
RustyMetal said:
When you get over 20-25' runs, you really need xlr cables, with an appropriate adapter at each end if necessary, depending on what you're connecting to.
Click to expand...

If you adapt it to unbalanced at any point it is all unbalanced and you lose any advantage of the balanced connection.
 
RustyMetal said:
bouldersoundguy, where did I say anything about unbalancing a signal?
Click to expand...

You didn't and you probably know what you're doing, but if someone interprets "appropriate adapter" as something like "XLR-TS" or "XLR-RCA" they may not get the result they wanted. So I guess it's just a clarification, not a correction (Murphy's law and all).
 
You have a point sort of, but even unbalanced it's still an xlr cable with the better quality core and shielding and all. IMO it's the quality of the cable itself that makes it good for longer distances, and more expensive too.

But anyway, I said everyone else had good advice for the OP, I was just trying to point out something that I thought would benefit the OP in future decisions related to his question.
 
RustyMetal said:
You have a point sort of, but even unbalanced it's still an xlr cable with the better quality core and shielding and all. IMO it's the quality of the cable itself that makes it good for longer distances, and more expensive too.
Click to expand...

The real difference is that there are two conductors twisted together, and they are carrying two copies of the signal with opposite polarity. If you unbalance the signal you lose common mode noise rejection, whatever the quality of the cable.
 
Good point. Unless your adapter bridges the twisted pair for the hot signal. I imagine not optimal, but better. Although I'm not sure they all use the twisted pair for the core. I've heard of some with double and triple surround shielding. I wonder if an inner shielding could be used for one of the signals. But I don't really know. I haven't been chopping up xlr's to look. :D
 
RustyMetal said:
Good point. Unless your adapter bridges the twisted pair for the hot signal. I imagine not optimal, but better.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what "bridges the twisted pair" means exactly. It's possible to leave the shield unconnected at one end in some cases, but the receiving end still needs to be balanced to reject noise.

RustyMetal said:
Although I'm not sure they all use the twisted pair for the core. I've heard of some with double and triple surround shielding. I wonder if an inner shielding could be used for one of the signals. But I don't really know. I haven't been chopping up xlr's to look. :D
Click to expand...

Generally one layer of shielding is fine if it's done right. There are four conductor cables, one pair for hot and one pair for cold. The physical arrangement is said to reject noise better. They are still twisted. You wouldn't want to shield one of the inner conductors because CMNR depends on both conductors picking up the same noise and canceling it out by inverting the cold relative to the hot.
 
Good point. I'm very familiar with the twisted pair theory. That's the way the phone land lines are in most everyone's house. But look at the distances a basic TV cablevision cable has to run on telephone poles, and that is one core and one foil shield - along with a wire mesh for strength so that bending/stretching too much won't crack/break the foil shielding.

I would think (and hope) that all xlr's are not made equal. So they might all not be the cheaper twisted pair cores.

Anyway, I think we're getting way off topic here.
 
RF is a whole different deal.

XLRs aren't all equal, but the differences are relatively small compared to losing the CMNR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top