Time to stock up on Behringer gear!

[noisedude]

Their use mode makes a difference. Some folks here are asking about live use. There, where noise is much more of an issue, many of the nuances of high end gear are mostly lost.

For others who may be recording at home, unless the rest of their gear is reasonably good, and their enviropnemtn matches, high end pieces may do little good. It's kind of a "the chain is only as strong as the weakest link" issue.

Ed

That's funny, I see it totally the other way around!! A slightly noisy mic or DI or mixer will be ok live because it gets drowned out in the hubbub. Surely it's when you get in the studio that noise levels really matter?

 

[boingoman]

That's funny, I see it totally the other way around!! A slightly noisy mic or DI or mixer will be ok live because it gets drowned out in the hubbub. Surely it's when you get in the studio that noise levels really matter?

That's what he's saying, he's just saying most home studios won't notice a little noise either.

 

[noisedude]

I guess so ... swings and roundabouts I guess. Noisy gear is noisy gear ...

 

[wilkee]

If you've seen a piece of Behringer gear, then you've seen cheap components. Behringer is the definition of cheap components.

OK so there are no Solen caps in there or Burr-Brown Op amps but so what, the majority of the parts are now SMD,s as used in 99.9% of mass market equipment. What I do see is perfectly acceptable circuit boards and layouts loaded with components that do the job perfectly well.

If you pay more money for an item of course you have every right to expect a better product, BUT.

What would you rather drive

A) An hand built Ford Modeo car made from individually crafted parts that would cost easily $500,000 or

B) A production line manufactured Rolls Royce $200,000

Please also answer one simple question, I accept that most of the Pro.s would not touch Berry gear with a Bargepole, If I was doing FOH work for say Peter Gabriel then neither would I. but why is it that the standard of commercial recordings has taken such a huge leap backwards Sound Quality wise. Maybe some of these guys shouild start to use lesser gear and actually listen to what they are producing.

Another fairy tale is that somehow people who use cheaper gear use it because they do not know any better or cannot tell the difference anyway (in some case quite probable) and that we will all see the ERROR of our ways some day.

Recording is 95% ability and 5% equipment and no amount of gear snobbishness will EVER change that. Its like the weekend golfer with his Wall-Mart clubs dreaming of the day when he can afford his Mizuno's and challenge the world. Buy the dream if you have too, me I know its Bullshit.

Excuse me now I must change the mains cable on my Vacuum cleaner for Mogami to see if it will suck better!!!

 

[robgb]

Marketing hype and total BS. There was no sideby side comparison unless you call a great comparison done in a noisy hall through headphones a fair comparison.

Even if it's done in a noisy hall, if they're BOTH tested under the SAME conditions, then it's a fair comparison.

But I'm not talking about marketing hype. I'm talking about a number of USERS who have done their own tests in the confines of their studios. Certainly there are qualifications in their results, but uniformly, at the very LEAST, they have said that the C1 stacks up favorably against the U87, particularly when you factor in price.

I know engineers who regularly use the C1 for vocals and I guarantee that very few of us here would be able to tell the difference -- unless, of course, we saw the brand name labels...

P.S. As for the side by side, a reviewer's blurb linked on Studio Projects own website claims it was done. And I quote:

"At the NAMM show, I was able to A/B the mic with a Neumann U-87, and though the show itself was noisy, I found the C1's self-noise to be slightly lower than that of the U-87."

Later, he says this, about his tests in an actual studio:

" Staff engineer Toshi Kasai set us up with the Studio Projects C1, an AKG 414-EB (silver body), a stock U-87, the Klaus Heyne U-87, and a U-67. "

<SNIP>

"Believe it or not, the Studio Projects held up against the Klaus Heyne modified mic. There's a definition in the high-end that the Klaus Heyne mods are noted for, and the Studio Projects mic did not posess this definition. However, there's a presence and robustness in the mids that this U-87 had, that was closer in quality to the Studio Projects mic than the stock U-87."

Another reviewer said this:

"Next, I tried an EQ setting I almost always use on every vocal track I've ever recorded w/ a U87. + about 2 db boost at 1K and 8K. Not quite right w/ this EQ. So, I switched from 8K to 12K. Here it is! This is a U87! No lie.

Now, keep in mind that even different U87's sound different, but if I close my eyes and just sing through this mic, I would have said U87. "

And, finally, here's what Ted Perlman had to say:

"Over the next week I tried the mic on male singers, female singers, young singers, old singers, singers who could really sing, singers who couldn’t sing very good – everybody. We did country, pop, rock, rap, hip-hop, R&B, everything. The mic just killed! It didn’t sound like a U87 – it actually sounded better!"

 

[robgb]

Please re-read earlier posts. What I was stating was in fact that the *sound* of a unit determines its value. And better designed and built boxes cost more to create, just from the nature of the extra time that must be put into testing the design and parts, and the cost of better parts themselves.

This is GENERALLY true, but not always so. Someone mentioned cars earlier, but that analogy was immediately dismissed.

There was a time when European luxury cars were considered the best and had price tags to prove it. Then along came the Japanese, who started building luxury cars at a considerably lower price.

Now there is NO ONE here who can convincingly argue that a top of the line Japanese import is any worse than a Mercedes (although undoubtedly some will try). Yet the price difference can be substantial.

When I speak of elitism, I'm not trying to insult anyone. It's simply part of human nature. We are conditioned to believe that expensive is better. Our mind KNOWS its a "better" piece of equipment, so, naturally, it SOUNDS better.

But let's try another analogy. Software, for example. MS Office is expensive and used by nearly everyone in the business world. Yet, there's a little office suite called OpenOffice.org that does everything MS Office does and better and costs absolutely nothing. Does the lower price tag make it a piece of junk? Of course not.

Yet many elitist ITS guys will only consider using Microsoft. They're suspicious of open source software (I know, because I've had experience with them).

Linux vs. Windows is another good example. Linux is a superior operating system in many ways, but costs nothing.

The same goes for musical equipment. Yes, what you say about cost is generally true, but there are many out there who can use the lower cost equipment and still produce gold. And many of the lower cost units are solid pieces of work, just as many of the more expensive units are crap.

Certainly what it SOUNDS like is a factor. But that's a completely subjective process. Few of us, no matter how well trained our ears are, will agree on what sounds the best. We could argue for days and none of us would be right.

You haven't seen pros using Beheringer gear for a couple of reasons:

1. They're snobbish when it comes to their equipment, they can usually afford the more expensive stuff, so why not?

2. More importantly, their CLIENTS are snobbish when it comes to equipment.

I've seen the same thing in the editing world. I use a world class NLE called Vegas that far and away blows every other NLE out of the water (I have used them ALL), yet many editors tell me that if a client thinks you're using anything other than the industry standard -- Avid -- he'll take his business elsewhere.

Avid costs about three times as much as Vegas and is vastly inferior on several levels. I once said as much in my magazine column and got jumped on by guess who?

The elitists.

 

[wilkee]

Funny thing is I duel boot my computer with SUSE linux and use Staroffice (Openofffice for a bit of money). Must be coincidence?


Tony

 

[Ed Dixon]

That's funny, I see it totally the other way around!! A slightly noisy mic or DI or mixer will be ok live because it gets drowned out in the hubbub. Surely it's when you get in the studio that noise levels really matter?

You may have mis-understood my point. Live use already has a lot of inherient noise, so ultra low noise components are somewhat lost in the dust. Their value there may be less. That what I was trying to say.

However in studio recording, it is different. One has control of all the other factors, and inherient noise is much smaller. In that mode. low noise components can make a bigger difference.

However even here, it is still in the audio chain. If other components that cannot be controlled (noisy pickups, noisy amps, background noise, etc) are still significant, then there too some untra low noise componetns may also be most ineffective as compared to lower cost units.

As said before, for recording the following order generally determines the final result:

1. The performer
2. The person(people) doing the recording
3. The environment for recording
4. The gear

If either of the first three are lacking, the fourth is not going to save the day.

Ed

 

[Ed Dixon]

This is what we are talking about here. This is why good gear costs more. This is not "elitism", this is facts.

There's no problem that Behringer serves the hobbiest or beginner market, or anybody who just needs it cheap and quick. There's no problem with that at all. But let's just not get confused and think that the gear is anything more than that. Discussions about quality are totally beside the point in this realm. It's gear designed and built to hit a price point, period.

Many aspects of your post are a perfect example of the very elitism that the earlier poster was discussing.

Behringer does not make gear with the idea of it being cheap and quick. Their gear is intended for use for far more than the hobbiest or beginner market. It is used by a wide range of performers and users that go considerably beyond cheap and quick. I know that, you know that, and most others know that. However rather than actually debating the subject, you just resort to elitism name calling.

Behringer makes a variety of gear. As others have already said, some models are quite good, and other less so. No different than most other firms. To just try and move them asside with "cheap and quick" words is a useless post.

We have a local theater here (as in actors and plays). It has been the start for many well known actors for the last 50+ years. As they recently opened a second facility for events, they went through a refit of their primary facility. They replaced many of the compoents that has used in the past with new gear and moved some of the previous gear to the new facility. Much of what they purchased was Behringer gear. They have a full time sound guy who is quite good at what he does. He has no regrets a year later since their purchase.

Ed

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

for recording the following order generally determines the final result:

1. The performer
2. The person(people) doing the recording
3. The environment for recording
4. The gear

If either of the first three are lacking, the fourth is not going to save the day.

I agree 110%..... (except I would have placed #3 before #2...!)

Funny thing, Ed... you and I have this strange way of being on the same side, yet sounding like we're at totally opposite ends.......

 

[Ed Dixon]

I agree 100%.....

Funny thing, Ed... you and I have this strange way of being on the same side, yet sounding like we're at totally opposite ends.......

I agree.

Gear choice is driven by an assortment of factors. Is should boil down to what works best for the target situation.

Yesterday we used a Behringer DDX3216 mixer at Church for the first time. That is an impressive piece of gear. Previously we had use a combination of Mackie and Tascam gear. While the sound improved, the real advantage was for stored presets. That feature mostly eliminates the human factor in finding good settings for a service. After a few more weeks, we'll have a better feeling for overall results.

Ed

 

[noisedude]

You may have mis-understood my point.

Clearly I did, because we are in agreement!!

Those digital desks look awesome for the money now ... wish I didn't have more important things (that I would actually use) to buy!!

SonicAlbert - I agree with your point, but I think that people who shop to a price point appreciate companies like Behringer trying to squeeze features in to that point. By copying and cheapening other people's designs they have made functional gear available for less. I'm not saying there is no better, because I have aspirations to quality equipment too, but if I need something to do a basic job where spending a month's wages on a better one is not an option, I'll take the best there is at my price point.

It seems like the only time that is a problem is when the person buying the budget gear has been suckered by the 'Ultra' 'Pro' and the three zeroes on the end of the product number and thinks they've got something as good as Bruce's studio ... which is when he gets fed and everyone gets tetchy

 

[wilkee]

I agree.


Yesterday we used a Behringer DDX3216 mixer at Church for the first time. That is an impressive piece of gear. Previously we had use a combination of Mackie and Tascam gear. While the sound improved, the real advantage was for stored presets. That feature mostly eliminates the human factor in finding good settings for a service. After a few more weeks, we'll have a better feeling for overall results.

Ed

I occasionally do the sound at the local theatre (Prince of Wales Cannock) and when I do I take out their Seck desk and replace it with my DDX unit because of its ability to store the settings for the various scene changes etc.

Do not forget to update the operating system and get the latest version as this adds a few worthwhile features.

If you need any advice regarding the DDX (I have had mine for over 2 years) please feel free to pm me.

Tony

 

[Ed Dixon]

I updated the OS just after I turned it on. It came with 1.11 and now had 1.12, which is current from the Behringer web site.

One thing that really impressed me were downloads to build libraries of preset categories for things like EQ, effects, and channel settings. Those were unexpected, but really help. It further speeds up the process of finding combinations that work.

The one area that I am unclear on is daisy chaining. We are testing the unit today for the stage monitor system to get a feel for how it works and where it good and bad points are located. However our end goal is to move to the sound booth for the FOH sound.

The issue there is channel capacity. We have a Mackie 32x4 board there now. All the channels have something connected. Since the time between the 3 Sunday services is short, reconnecting mics is not an option. While we may be able to find a way to mount it above the Mackie for the short term, the long term desire is to get a second identical unit so we have something close to all 32 channels available.

I’m not sure how to best do that. It has both digital and analog outputs, but connecting two of them together does not have a clear solution yet.

Ed

 

[wilkee]

I’m not sure how to best do that. It has both digital and analog outputs, but connecting two of them together does not have a clear solution yet.

Ed

The cheapest and simplest way is to purchase the ADAT board for the DDX and 2 off Berry ADA8000 units . This would give you a total of 28 mic inputs. You would access these other Mics using the Channel 17-32 switch. You would also gain as a bi-product 16 extra balanced ouputs!!
I think that this is better than getting another DDX because then all of the memory functions are available on one unit.

To connect one DDX to another simply used the SPDIF out on one machine to the SPDIF in on the other and use the faders for channel 13/14 to control the level from the other machine. Note that the SPDIF output always carries the same signal as the main outs. The SPDIF'S are the RCA connectors on the back of the unit.

Tony

 

[acorec]

Even if it's done in a noisy hall, if they're BOTH tested under the SAME conditions, then it's a fair comparison.

But I'm not talking about marketing hype. I'm talking about a number of USERS who have done their own tests in the confines of their studios. Certainly there are qualifications in their results, but uniformly, at the very LEAST, they have said that the C1 stacks up favorably against the U87, particularly when you factor in price.

I know engineers who regularly use the C1 for vocals and I guarantee that very few of us here would be able to tell the difference -- unless, of course, we saw the brand name labels...

P.S. As for the side by side, a reviewer's blurb linked on Studio Projects own website claims it was done. And I quote:

"At the NAMM show, I was able to A/B the mic with a Neumann U-87, and though the show itself was noisy, I found the C1's self-noise to be slightly lower than that of the U-87."

Later, he says this, about his tests in an actual studio:

" Staff engineer Toshi Kasai set us up with the Studio Projects C1, an AKG 414-EB (silver body), a stock U-87, the Klaus Heyne U-87, and a U-67. "

<SNIP>

"Believe it or not, the Studio Projects held up against the Klaus Heyne modified mic. There's a definition in the high-end that the Klaus Heyne mods are noted for, and the Studio Projects mic did not posess this definition. However, there's a presence and robustness in the mids that this U-87 had, that was closer in quality to the Studio Projects mic than the stock U-87."

Another reviewer said this:

"Next, I tried an EQ setting I almost always use on every vocal track I've ever recorded w/ a U87. + about 2 db boost at 1K and 8K. Not quite right w/ this EQ. So, I switched from 8K to 12K. Here it is! This is a U87! No lie.

Now, keep in mind that even different U87's sound different, but if I close my eyes and just sing through this mic, I would have said U87. "

And, finally, here's what Ted Perlman had to say:

"Over the next week I tried the mic on male singers, female singers, young singers, old singers, singers who could really sing, singers who couldn’t sing very good – everybody. We did country, pop, rock, rap, hip-hop, R&B, everything. The mic just killed! It didn’t sound like a U87 – it actually sounded better!"

You are right, silly me, I should listen and believe all reviews. I have been doing it wrong all my life...............

 

[SonicAlbert]

Why not expand the DDX via the expansion slots? You could get a couple of Behringers ADAT expansion boards and then connect two ADA8000 eight channel pream/converter units to them. Then you have 32 channels on one mixer. Far batter than daisy chaining a couple mixers in my opinion. And you get to use all Behringer gear. ;-)

But since the DDX's are getting blown out for $599 now, it might actually be cheaper to get another mixer.

The only major thing you have to do to effectively combine two mixers is tie together their busses and fx sends. Once you've done that, they essentially function as one mixer. And of course, the master stereo outs have to be combined, but that's easy. You can simply take the main outs of one mixer and put them into two channels of another mixer, and then just route that to the stereo outputs. If you put them into the fx returns of the second mixer then you don't lose any input channels.

It would have been better if Behringer had included a way to cascade mixers like some other manufacturers do, but adding that and other missing features would have added to the cost of the unit. Nevertheless, putting some ADAT expansion boards and ADA8000's should give you your 32 channels in one mixer.

 

[Ed Dixon]

The cheapest and simplest way is to purchase the ADAT board for the DDX and 2 off Berry ADA8000 units . This would give you a total of 28 mic inputs. You would access these other Mics using the Channel 17-32 switch. You would also gain as a bi-product 16 extra balanced ouputs!!
I think that this is better than getting another DDX because then all of the memory functions are available on one unit.

To connect one DDX to another simply used the SPDIF out on one machine to the SPDIF in on the other and use the faders for channel 13/14 to control the level from the other machine. Note that the SPDIF output always carries the same signal as the main outs. The SPDIF'S are the RCA connectors on the back of the unit.

Tony

I was not sure how the ADAT interface worked, as the docs are a little light in this area. This DDX unit came with one ADAT unit, so we arleady have that one. It was not clear from the docs that you could connect two ADA8000 units at the same time. With that approach we would have all 32 channels and a single mixer, which is better. Today we use a max of 16 channels at a time in any of the 3 services, so doing the 1-16, 17-32 switch should work fine.

The issue I had with the SPDIF approach into channel 13/14 was dealing with AUX sends. You lose the connectivity with this approach anmd dealing with AUX sends becomes harder.

Today the Mackie board as 6 aux sends, all of which are used. However one if for effects, which would now not be needed, and one more is for a separate speaker feed to the lobby area. I believe the control room outs would work file for this option. that leaves 4, which is what the DDX already has. It also sounds like the outputs from the ADA8000 would be a possibility, so that might help there as well.

Ed

 

[SonicAlbert]

OK so there are no Solen caps in there or Burr-Brown Op amps but so what, the majority of the parts are now SMD,s as used in 99.9% of mass market equipment. What I do see is perfectly acceptable circuit boards and layouts loaded with components that do the job perfectly well.

If you pay more money for an item of course you have every right to expect a better product, BUT.

What would you rather drive

A) An hand built Ford Modeo car made from individually crafted parts that would cost easily $500,000 or

B) A production line manufactured Rolls Royce $200,000

Please also answer one simple question, I accept that most of the Pro.s would not touch Berry gear with a Bargepole, If I was doing FOH work for say Peter Gabriel then neither would I. but why is it that the standard of commercial recordings has taken such a huge leap backwards Sound Quality wise. Maybe some of these guys shouild start to use lesser gear and actually listen to what they are producing.

Another fairy tale is that somehow people who use cheaper gear use it because they do not know any better or cannot tell the difference anyway (in some case quite probable) and that we will all see the ERROR of our ways some day.

Recording is 95% ability and 5% equipment and no amount of gear snobbishness will EVER change that. Its like the weekend golfer with his Wall-Mart clubs dreaming of the day when he can afford his Mizuno's and challenge the world. Buy the dream if you have too, me I know its Bullshit.

Excuse me now I must change the mains cable on my Vacuum cleaner for Mogami to see if it will suck better!!!

Wow, there is so much cool stuff in this post to respond to!

First, equating Behringer with Rolls Royce is just so far off base it is laughable. Behringer is like Kia or Dawoo, the cheapest and flimsiest cars out there. So the musical comparison is really closer to comparing a Rolls with a Kia. Guess which has better parts and which is the better car?

Again, my posts are being misunderstood here. I AGREE, there is a place for a company like Behringer that makes bottom priced gear with a certain feature set. I own a Behringer piece myself. All I'm saying is *let's not get confused* and think this is great audio gear. You can hear the difference if you A/B a great headphone distribution system with the Behring stuff, for example. You can indeed hear the difference.

This does not go against the argument however that Behringer gear has it's place. I've certainly seen many house systems with Behringer gear in them, usually places that have a low budget and the sound guys have to make do. The best sounding house I have ever played in did not have one cheap piece of gear in it, it was all high end and it sounded *amazing*.

That's all I'm saying: there's a place for cheap gear, but let's not get confused and call it good.

As far as the standard of recording going backwards, perhaps that is *because* of all this crap gear out there now? Before, you had music recorded by engineers in professional studios using professional gear designed for pros, not consumers. The engineers apprenticed for years often, learning their craft, before being able to move up to the big chair themselves. Now, you have a situation where people with little or no training can produce music in their bedrooms using $69 compressors. Don't you think this is part of the reason why you feel commercial recordings have gone backwards? Perhaps more importantly, so many studios have gone out of business that the apprentice-ship type of system is much more limited now. So you don't have as much of that business of the old masters handing down the knowledge as you used to. Message boards don't count, you've got to be in the room to really learn it.

Incidentally, I think it's *great* that we can all record in our own homes or project studios. I do that myself, but there is a downside too.

I agree about recording being 95% talent. However, think about that 95% ability coupled with 95% quality gear. Now that is something. why should all that telent be hobbled by using inferior gear. ALL the pieces of the puzzle need to be in place to create the optimum recording. The talent, the music, the room, the engineering skills, the recording medium. Then on to the mixing and mastering. While you can indeed make a record with lesser gear, why do that if you can at all possibly make the same record with better gear.

The gear *does* make a difference.

Well, I expect this post to be as unpopular as the rest of my posts in this thread.

 

[SonicAlbert]

The issue I had with the SPDIF approach into channel 13/14 was dealing with AUX sends. You lose the connectivity with this approach anmd dealing with AUX sends becomes harder.

Today the Mackie board as 6 aux sends, all of which are used. However one if for effects, which would now not be needed, and one more is for a separate speaker feed to the lobby area. I believe the control room outs would work file for this option. that leaves 4, which is what the DDX already has. It also sounds like the outputs from the ADA8000 would be a possibility, so that might help there as well.

In the SPDIF approach you don't lose the aux sends, you just need to combine them. As I remember, the DDX has four internal aux sends and four external aux sends. You just need to sum the external aux sends. So send one from both mixers is combined, send two's are combined, and so forth. Same with the busses. Then you basically have one mixer made of two mixers.

You would simply use the internal aux sends and digital fx processors as they are, and not combine them. If you wanted the same effect on both mixers you'd just set the processor to the same settings on both mixers.