Time to stock up on Behringer gear!

[noisedude]

Oh ... that seals it. I definitely NEED one of those motorized mixers then!

 

[acorec]

Complete B.S. While I have no doubt that there are reviewers who take payoffs somewhere in the world, they are few and far between. I used to do software reviews for a national magazine and nobody ever gave me a red cent and I was free to say what I wanted about the product. In fact, few companies have the funds to be paying for reviews. So, until you've walked the walk, don't disparage those who have.

Secondly, nobody is asking YOU in particular to buy a Studio Projects mic. You were the one who chimed in on the subject by saying the comparison is b.s. All I'm saying is that BEFORE you attack the mic, at least give it a listen. The fact that it's a budget mic does not necessarily mean its a crappy one.

Do you attack a song or proclaim it a work of genius before you've even heard it?

It doesn't matter a hoot if you've tried a dozen budget mics. The question is, have you tried the C1? Doesn't sound like it. Yet you jump to a conclusion based on what? Snobbery. Nothing else.

Like I said, take the reviewers with a grain of salt, but if most of them are giving a piece of equipment the nod, then you'd be foolish not to investigate.

If you really understood recording at all, you would know why any mic comparison like the one done with the SP and U87 mic is a flawed test and totally worthless, circus sideshow trickery. I jump to no conclusions at all. I have tried too many of these budget mics and found them all to have the same problems that accumulate with more tracks. If you have not learned yet that you cannot judge a mic based on 1 track of source material, you really should get another hobby. And I stand on what I said earlier, these budjet mics are fine as long as you stay away from too many tracks built up with the same mic. It makes it impossible to mix down and your EQ will get skewed all over the place from track to track.

 

[robgb]

If you really understood recording at all, .

Please, I've been laying tracks since before your were born. I owned two studios, worked in several more, recorded three of my own albums, built a studio in my backyard and have used and abused just about any piece of equipment, budget or high-end, you can name.

Don't make assumptions. It makes an a*s*s out of you and umption.

Secondly, I wasn't pointing to only ONE comparison of the C1/U87 as you like to keep pointing out. MANY users have done their own comparisons and have come to similar conclusions. And that's my point.

Don't dismiss something until you've tried it yourself.

 

[robgb]

If you say so. I think you may have missed that I wasn't paying attention and don't care

I'll definitely agree it has little to do with Behringer or Behringer gear or rebates, the actual subject of this thread. I was just answering a newbie's question, laying it out how I saw it. I am not involved in the argument and do not wish to be.

Ed's and Sonic's etc. gear talk and the kid's question are the only things I have bothered to pay attention to in this thread. The rest of it is mostly crap, with some of your bits being among the crappiest.

I think the whole thing is a testament to our human instinct to talk about ourselves and our opinions, and thinking someone else wants to or is going to listen. But that's just my opinion. Maybe people just like to type. Or are actually revealing mega-truths never before considered by man. I'm not going to worry about it either way.

If you feel driven to try to figure it out, far be it from me to stop you. Sounds like it could get pretty esoteric and convoluted by the end. Don't torture yourself too much about it, and don't forget to post when you figure it out. I can't wait to read it.

LOL. I find it hilarious that, after insulting me and anyone else involved in this conversation, you're doing exactly what you're accusing us of.

I really don't give a damn whether you're interested in exploring human nature or not, but something compelled you to throw your two cents in, so welcome to the fray.

 

[acorec]

Please, I've been laying tracks since before your were born. I owned two studios, worked in several more, recorded three of my own albums, built a studio in my backyard and have used and abused just about any piece of equipment, budget or high-end, you can name.

.

Then you should be very familiar with the U87 and these budget mics and the problems they create in a busy mix.

The budget mics are great for use on a few tracks. Too many tracks and the sonic footprint can be heard and cannot be EQed out or fixed. Buy cheap, buy twice will never be outmoded.

 

[robgb]

Then you should be very familiar with the U87 and these budget mics and the problems they create in a busy mix.

The budget mics are great for use on a few tracks. Too many tracks and the sonic footprint can be heard and cannot be EQed out or fixed. Buy cheap, buy twice will never be outmoded.

Your train of thought is hard to keep track of. I thought we were debating about the C1, not budget mics in general. Since you've never USED the C1, what's your point?

I'll make my point once again. You cannot judge something, sight unseen (or unheard), simply because it's a "budget" microphone. Each individual mic has to be judged on its own.

From my own experience with Studio Projects mics, they sit just fine in a mix. That's MY experience. Perhaps I just have different ears than you (better... worse... who knows?).

Your blanket point of view that ALL budget mics pose problems is not only ridiculous, but -- as I've said time and again -- elitist.

I ask you again, do you judge the merits of a song before you've ever heard it? Do you automatically assume that open source software can't be as good as the expensive stuff? Do you automatically assume that German cars are superior to Japanese cars?

These are simple questions, really. And the same question can be applied to "budget" gear. Some is good, some is bad. But to automatically assume that all of it is bad, is ridiculous -- and foolish.

If it makes you feel better to spend $3500 on a mic, by all means, do it. More power to you. But I've heard a helluva lot of great mixes done by people who can't afford that luxury.

 

[CoolCat]

comparing

i like the "blind-fold" testing method...let the ears check out the gear.

problem is it's hard to plug in mics and cables with a blindfold on.
harharharhar...

i do the blindfold test with home stereo speakers at times. everything plays a part, room, inputs....I don't use a osillyscope.
If a $100 CD player sounds as good as a $500 Cd player whtthe fhk...
If my bedroom sounds so shtty why waste money on a Nuemann right away.
Been there before...
wasting time, walking around GC like a fhkng Zombie.. trying out all these mics and the dreaded "RETURN!! WHT DO YOU MEAN ??? WHATS WRONG with THIS ONE!!! I'll HAVE TO GET THE MANAGER!!!" says the sales dude.

All these mics (without a decent Pre-Amp or knowledge thereof)...and nothing ever changed...all the mics sounded the same..so why buy a $300 Mic when it doesn't sound as good as the SM57? i told the GC rep. "can I have my money back again.."

I added a SP B1 and a DMP3 and a RNC1773...and a TCM300 and it's the best crap I ever recorded....and some wall traps too...all from the gang here.

Thats what I'm talkin bout.

BlindFold test. and guitar center returns...hahahaa

 

[SonicAlbert]

i like the "blind-fold" testing method...let the ears check out the gear.

I do too, blind testing is the *only* way to objectively test gear. Once you match volumes between the items being tested, this will tell you what's what. Prepare to be very surprised by the results.

I've done blind testing with friends, and it can really shock you how some lower priced gear can blow away expensive equipment.

In my experience there is a lower limit to this though. The true budget gear (like the "B" word being discussed in this thread and other bottom feeder prosumer units) will *not* blow away high end or even mid-level gear in blind tests. This is because of all the things I've mentioned earlier in this thread regarding quality designers and quality parts and quality build costing money.

*However*. Between well made pro level pieces of gear there is certainly room for surprises. Once you get out of the bargain basement into mid-priced gear you actually get into some good stuff that can compare very favorably with more expensive and/or well known gear of the same type.

This is where I think the real *values* in gear can be found, not in hunting down the very lowest priced gear. Lowest price does not necessarily mean the best value for your money.

 

[CoolCat]

ycertainly

In my experience there is a lower limit to this though. The true budget gear (like the "B" word being discussed in this thread and other bottom feeder prosumer units) will *not* blow away high end or even mid-level gear in blind tests. This is because of all the things I've mentioned earlier in this thread regarding quality designers and quality parts and quality build costing money.
QUOTE]
Behringer represents the lowest level it appears...instead of saying crap/sht gear..it appears gearheads say Behringer or "Bword". fhkng great man.

using ears,
all the Behringer stuff i have tried was returned.
agree with not commenting on their stuff i've never tried.
but as sales guys have a golden rule
"it's 10X's as hard to get a customer back the second time".

so Behringer is like a restraunt to me, where I ate once or twice and got sick...so now I don't go there.
yea, maybe my loss if they make some good cheapproducts?
I've grown tired of returning sht...with the same Logo.

buy sht, buy twice...or three times in my case.

OFFTHESUBJECT: Fender (if not already there) has reversed the chain from good to crappy.....plastic chrome painted tuning keys..fhkng sad. $99 line...just like the PRO's PLAY!!! I read that in a advertisement voted by
BEST MUSICIANS OF THE WORLD and READERS ULTRA PRO POLL!!!

 

[robgb]

Lowest price does not necessarily mean the best value for your money.

Exactly. Just as a high price offers no guarantees either.

 

[robgb]

OFFTHESUBJECT: Fender (if not already there) has reversed the chain from good to crappy.....plastic chrome painted tuning keys..fhkng sad. $99 line...just like the PRO's PLAY!!! I read that in a advertisement voted by
BEST MUSICIANS OF THE WORLD and READERS ULTRA PRO POLL!!!

Can it be any worse than the CBS years? I've never been a big Fender fan anyway. Gibson all the way.... Just like that Gibson sound.

 

[Smurf]

Hey! Thats Mine!

"Blue Bear Sound Pro Studio" is nothing more than a re-built closet with egg-shell cartons as sound diffusers. His recording equipment solely consists of a mono '71 Bell & Howell pop-up cassette recorder w. built in mic, a pair of Lafayette spkrs circa 1974 and a 2 1/2 channel mixer from Archer Electronic Kits.

I HAD that set up............

I have to jump in and say I just got a MXL990 and a Behringer UB802 for my "little 'ol" home setup. It IS pro level to me......................coming from a Radio Shack 4-ch - no EQ - Mono-Stereo switch - Vu meter - RCA plug mixer with Realistic PRO - First Act mics. Sounds 1000 times better thru my 3 piece Altec Lansing ACS31 super-duper monitors, which are being fed from a SB PCI512 card in a P3 700 computer with 640mb memory and a 10 and 13gig hard drives running the Kristal Audio Engine for multi track recording, using Audacity for wave editing, along with all the sound fonts I have for my tracks......etc.
I AM happy at the moment, and when the funds come in I'll "upgrade" again. This set up gets me recording and learning, and thats what counts as far as I see it. USE WHAT YA GOT!

 

[lowis5]

Objective claims

I've been reading this thread and I haven't seen one post where people mention WHY the quality is worse in Behringer products. There are only 3 variables when considering electronic gear 'tone': The design, component quality, and factors the designer can't control (power supply for the equipment, etc.). If Behringer reverse engineers popular designs, then this is not what makes behringer products worse. If it uses sub quality opamps, transistors, caps, etc. then this affects the quality. And finally, it's up to the customer to find a 'noise free' power supply for their equipment. So how is it that some mebers talk about the sound being worse, etc. without talking objectively about the components behringer uses. It seems that the only valid reason for behringer being sub quality is the components it uses (freq response, etc.).
In my opinion, it is a matter of 'status' of having this brand or another, or this 'vintage' gear or another.

Luis

 

[noisedude]

There are a million threads discussing the build and component quality of Behringer gear. If you think I'm the slightest bit interested in status, you're very confused. And even the Bear has been using a Mackie desk in his studio til now - hardly 'cred' gear. It's about what you find to be good and bad, and particularly in home recording, what you find to be good and bad value for your money.

 

[CoolCat]

Buy Vintage...

Vintage is just a status thing...it doesn't matter.
good news, now i won't have to spend as much.

It all sounds the same played thru a cheap plastic 2" speaker,
in a 4" plastic-particleboard cabinet.

plastic-particleboard...hmm
...i could start a company and
build sht even cheaper using plastic-particleboard?
yeah..reverse engineer vintage stuff!
and have a factory built and fill it with hmmm..
MONKEYS!!!
Monkey-laborers..
and, and...
the Monkeys could use plastic-glue instead of solder...
hmm...company name..let me think..yes!!

VINTAGE....
ULTRA PRO-STATUS RECORDING EQUIPMENT

free 2" speaker cables with the mail-in monkey rebate.

Disclaimer:
VINTAGE is not liable for any Monkey related diseases
or homes burning down if equipment is turned on after the first 7days.

Warranty: Warranty period ends upon leaving the premise of the store.

If noises or poor audio is heard
1) recommend designing your own power supply
2) replacing internal components with actual audio devices
is recommended.
3) you may call our service dept. but they only speak Monkey.

 

[acorec]

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.

ELitest is what? Top notch pro recording equipment is made to be used 24/7 and get the best preformance possible. It is not "elitist" it is "professional equipment'. The term "pro" is so friggin overused these days that the meaning is totally lost. I challenge to use some of this fabulous cheap shit on a daily basis in a PRO recording studio and tell me that it holds up to REAL pro equipment. Not even close. Pro tools are pro tools. End of story. If you are a pro, and make your $$$ exclusively off of recording, you would not ever go to cheap equipment as you will very quickly find out why.

There is nothin elitist in Snap-on tools- they are used by pros for a number of reasons.
There is nothing elitist about any of the high-end pro tools used in any industry everywhere. Pro tools last, are reliable and serve the purpose of getting the job done 24/7. They are made for PROFESSIONALS.


Except here, in "home recording land" where people have to justify why they can get pro-results from cheap equipment. Laughable.

Tell the hard workers out there constructing buildings that their Dewalt drills are too expensive and you will give them a Craftsman drill because it will do the same job. Right. A Dewalt will pay for ten Craftsman drills at least.

 

[Ed Dixon]

Top notch pro recording equipment is made to be used 24/7 and get the best performance possible. It is not "elitist" it is "professional equipment'.

I think that few would argue that point, however that is not the point really being discussed. In most pro studios that operate a full schedule, one would expect to find the best gear. I doubt that most pro studios even run a 24/7 schedule, but that is also not the point.

Most that post here are not top pro recording engineers. Most have never been a pro recording engineer, and probably have never even met one.

Most are folks who record audio in a home studio. Most probably record only their own material, or perhaps a few others material. A few probably make a living doing recording in their home studio, but I expect that is a small minority.

One can get very good results from a wide range of audio gear. Today’s market has come so far, that what costs $250K a few years ago, costs a few thousand today. The result is that even modest priced gear can produce very good results.

Where the elitist part comes in is when folks look down on other folks because they chose to use some lower priced gear. Many automatically associate names like Behringer with garbage gear, which is generally untrue. They love to use words like cheap and garbage, rather than phrases like lower cost or economy, which is probably far more accurate.

Many here don’t have money to burn. What they need is advice of what options they have that meet their budget and will offer a result suitable for their needs. In many cases low cost mixers or other gear is the absolutely correct answer. A $30 direct box may be entirely suitable for their needs as compared to the $190 super duper model.

I think that most would agree that is you buy the lowest cost Radio Shack mic, and hook it up to a reasonable quality digital recorder you’ll get some kind of recorded vocals results. Most would also agree that is you then use a Shure SM58 you would probably get somewhat better results. However hooking up a $2000 mic may make little difference as other factors then enter the equation. Things like background noise, the material the floor is made of, the extent of sound insulation for the room being used, the skill of the engineer, and a number of factors. It’s the old “chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link” issue.

Many people who get involved in home recording are really not sure where they want to go with it. Some percentage buy their gear, use it a few times, and then it gathers dust. Others have a clear plan in mind with a considerably higher goal towards the end game time. Many also plan for the stepping stone approach. They start with a set of gear with the idea of moving up in gear and options if things (both experience and $$$) go well. So the answer for each during this process varies. There is no one size fits all.

Tell the hard workers out there constructing buildings that their Dewalt drills are too expensive and you will give them a Craftsman drill because it will do the same job. Right. A Dewalt will pay for ten Craftsman drills at least.

True. However most of us have drills in our basement. I expect most have something like a Craftsman, and have found that is entirely suited their needs. Most of the folks here are not professionals who construct buildings, and most are also not top notch professional recording engineers.

Ed

 

[acorec]

I think that few would argue that point, however that is not the point really being discussed. In most pro studios that operate a full schedule, one would expect to find the best gear. I doubt that most pro studios even run a 24/7 schedule, but that is also not the point.

Most that post here are not top pro recording engineers. Most have never been a pro recording engineer, and probably have never even met one.

Most are folks who record audio in a home studio. Most probably record only their own material, or perhaps a few others material. A few probably make a living doing recording in their home studio, but I expect that is a small minority.

One can get very good results from a wide range of audio gear. Today’s market has come so far, that what costs $250K a few years ago, costs a few thousand today. The result is that even modest priced gear can produce very good results.

Where the elitist part comes in is when folks look down on other folks because they chose to use some lower priced gear. Many automatically associate names like Behringer with garbage gear, which is generally untrue. They love to use words like cheap and garbage, rather than phrases like lower cost or economy, which is probably far more accurate.

Many here don’t have money to burn. What they need is advice of what options they have that meet their budget and will offer a result suitable for their needs. In many cases low cost mixers or other gear is the absolutely correct answer. A $30 direct box may be entirely suitable for their needs as compared to the $190 super duper model.

I think that most would agree that is you buy the lowest cost Radio Shack mic, and hook it up to a reasonable quality digital recorder you’ll get some kind of recorded vocals results. Most would also agree that is you then use a Shure SM58 you would probably get somewhat better results. However hooking up a $2000 mic may make little difference as other factors then enter the equation. Things like background noise, the material the floor is made of, the extent of sound insulation for the room being used, the skill of the engineer, and a number of factors. It’s the old “chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link” issue.

Many people who get involved in home recording are really not sure where they want to go with it. Some percentage buy their gear, use it a few times, and then it gathers dust. Others have a clear plan in mind with a considerably higher goal towards the end game time. Many also plan for the stepping stone approach. They start with a set of gear with the idea of moving up in gear and options if things (both experience and $$$) go well. So the answer for each during this process varies. There is no one size fits all.



True. However most of us have drills in our basement. I expect most have something like a Craftsman, and have found that is entirely suited their needs. Most of the folks here are not professionals who construct buildings, and most are also not top notch professional recording engineers.

Ed

All true, except where these people you are referring to start posts and defend how their cheap mic/pre/etc. was tested by "pros" and sound exactlt/better than the pro equipment and THEN paste in all the "tests" glowing with these insultingly salesweasle lines "It sounds just like a U87 at 1/10th the price!!!!"

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot go both ways.

You CAN get decent recordings if you are careful with budget equipment. You WILL no get pro quality recordings with budget equipment.

The sound in a pro studio with pro equipment will trounce the sound of a home studio (and I don't mean a pro studio in a home).

95% of a recording is engineering and 5% of the recording is the equipment.

After that, 95% of the sound IS the equipment.

 

[Ed Dixon]

Generally true. One can however go consideably beyond decent recordings with non-pro gear. There are only a small percentage of artists than can even benefit from pro level help, as their basic performance is the weak link part.

Since most here are home recorders, the issue is still what gear is good enough for their needs. In many cases, an answer that involves lower cost gear is a good choice.

Ed

 

[wilkee]

You CAN get decent recordings if you are careful with budget equipment. You WILL no get pro quality recordings with budget equipment.

What do you mean by Pro quality? Do you mean the heavily compressed "shyte" that usually has recorded & mixed with Pro-Tools on the sleeve?

A lot of budget gear now including Mics are perfectly capable of producing "Pro quality recordings". Does not "Pro" simply mean someone who makes earnings from a given discipline, are you saying no one ever made money from a recording using say an SP C1.

It makes me laugh when I read the Magazine articles where the engineer pontificates on how they had to scour the country to obtain a vintage "Superduper 1500xlx" compressor or a "Nevey 1985" pre to obtain the perfect sound and its pretty obvious to anyone with a pair of ears that they could have done the job just as well with a Portastudio.

Pro Quality-- my arse

Am I the only person on this forum that thinks the quality of commercial recordings has taken a huge nosedive over the last 10 years?

Tony

Sorry but I was getting splinters from sitting on the fence