New Behringer Digital Mixers

[agedhorse]

Remember' date=' in Behringer's case you can use a laptop instead of a tablet if that strikes your fancy. I don't understand why the other vendors haven't gone that route (open protocol). The laptop option is particularly attractive because it means you can freeze your OS in time and virtualize it in the future, so you become a lot more future-proof. Virtualization on tablets basically doesn't exist.[/quote']

 

This is a good point.

 

Tablets and phones have become "consumables", meaning that the life cycle is not defined only by the user/owner, but in a large degree by the industry that is motivated by a sales driven model. Kind of like the fox being in charge of feeding the hen house.

[Shaster]

I started off thinking that the new line of B mixers might be great for installs where the end users would understand a digital platform versus a physical mixer. Having thought about it for a minute, I'm starting to see that the dangers of quick software obsolescence would or could be quite problematic in installs.

 

I've got schools with PA's that I have placed five, ten and even fifteen years ago. They are still using these systems and I might add that the systems I installed typically replaced twenty, thirty and even forty year old PA's. These same schools will often replace their computers every three to five years, but they don't replace their PA's until they break beyond repair.

 

I would imagine that churches, hotels, transit stations, banquet halls and so on, would want the same longevity. Maybe this next and new wave of digital technology would not be the best for installs. - at least in the set it and forget it venues.

[agedhorse]

Shaster, I think you grasp the challenge indeed. I have maybe 400-500 hundred installations that I have done over the years, the expectations of most (but not all) are that they just work without having to worry about software or software driven platforms. I have enough challenges with maintaining the variability of the wireless spectrum as I have probably over 500 wireless systems in operation amongst the systems.

[Craig Vecchione]

(Regarding the TT24 not having current support:)

 

 

And this is a 10 year old mixer. And for those who still have a computer with XP, it's still going to work great. Just because Microsoft stopped supporting XP doesn't mean you can't use XP any longer. (How many more updates would XP still need at this point anyway?) I have a hard time getting memory cards for my old Motif these days. Doesn't make the board unusable by a long shot. Isn't going to the first choice for somebody looking for a new board, obviously. But for somebody who already owns one and likes it? It's still gotta lot of miles left in the drivetrain for sure.

 

Yes, we live in a world now where electronic devices become outdated in a few years. Whether it's your TV or DVD player or automobile or computer or whatever. Most of us aren't using the same devices we did 10 years ago with all sorts of things. Looks like it will be the same with these sorts of mixers. I don't think that will hurt the marketability of them at all. And will probably be more than offset by the usability, convenience, etc.

 

And for those still wanting to lug around a clunky analog board and a rack full of outboard gear, those options will probably still exist too. Especially if that stuff is available good and cheap used.

 

Yes, it's a 10 year old mixer, but when I looked up Mackie's support, the latest build was dated 2010. So you get 6 years of support. I see no trend toward extending support, and in fact the point I mentioned earlier about Mackie dropping support for older iPads for the DL series shows they're trending toward much shorter support (the DL was announced at Winter NAMM 2012) of apps.

 

This doesn't bode well for anyone planning a 10-year life cycle for major hardware. I see this as a problem, and don't appreciate the 'amateurization', for lack of a better term, of pro audio gear. The short lifespan is just about expected for consumer commodities like phones and tablets, and has been expected for computers in the consumer market. But professional gear is supposed to be designed and built to a higher standard of performance, lifespan, and support.

 

To be sure, I'd be much happier if someone had a mixer that offered accessory interfaces. Give me the choice to buy a proprietary wireless interface and perhaps even a smaller vision I can give to the band to mix their IEM's. I'd pay more for a purpose-built device that didn't depend on the whims of the consumer market and a third-party vendor to be viable in 10 years.

 

I'd also argue that resale of the current digitals would be hurt by the fact that those requiring, or offering major functionality via, a 3rd party tablet device. You're selling your old DL mixer a few years from now...do you offer the iPad with it? That kinda degrades the supposed savings you enjoyed by buying a mixer with a tablet you "had anyway". Then again, the tablet is obsolete anyway. May as well throw out the baby with the bathwater...

[wesg]

Amateurization - yes, that is a good term for what I see, too. As a computer guy with significant high-availability experience, I look at products like the Mackie DL series as pro-sumer and not professional-use products. Much like a MacIntosh web server and Sears Craftsman socket sets.

 

IMHO you can safely bet that 10 years from now you will be able to run Linux on a touch screen laptop, and that you will be able to virtualize today's laptops on one. So if you are looking at a digital product that will run on a Linux touch screen, you are at least future-proof. Modulo some custom sysadmin work that might be necessary.

 

If I was setting up something like an X32 or M32 with my normal professional (telecom-influenced) attitude, I would put two in, and have a way to live-sync scene changes (etc) with point-in-time recovery. Then I would have a patch bay with parallel inputs and quiet cutover switches for the outputs, so that I could switch mixers mid-song if needed. A wireless tablet would not be the only control surface. There would be a hard-wired laptop.

 

And my solution would be really expensive and require additional operator training. Good, Fast, Cheap: pick two. That's the rule for software, but I'm sure a parallel rule applies in the live sound reinforcement world.

 

Hardware (analog) mixers, the thing about them is that most failure modes have a predictive component, clear "documentation" of the device's current state, and generally do not fail catastrophically. Unlike software. I would consider an analog hardware mixer with a built-in redundant power supply and cold standby to be sufficient for the level of availability I use when supplying services to telecoms.

 

Wes

[Vito Corleone]

 

 

I've got schools with PA's that I have placed five, ten and even fifteen years ago. They are still using these systems and I might add that the systems I installed typically replaced twenty, thirty and even forty year old PA's. These same schools will often replace their computers every three to five years, but they don't replace their PA's until they break beyond repair.

 

I would imagine that churches, hotels, transit stations, banquet halls and so on, would want the same longevity. Maybe this next and new wave of digital technology would not be the best for installs. - at least in the set it and forget it venues.

 

 

I don't think there's any real reason they would expect any greater longevity out of a PA mixer than they get out of their computer systems. Yeah, there might be some old guy working there who remembers how long the old system lasted but I think most younger folks are pretty clued into the ever-changing world of technology and upgrades.

 

Sound equipment is now more like your computer than like your rangetop stove. I don't think most people are going to be disappointed by this.

[Vito Corleone]

(Regarding the TT24 not having current support:)

 

 

 

Yes, it's a 10 year old mixer, but when I looked up Mackie's support, the latest build was dated 2010.

 

Well, based on what people are saying here, it looks like Mackie made a big error by making this unit into such a closed system. We're still in the beginning stages of this technology. My Commodore 64 didn't really last too long either. But I would expect that in 10-20 years time we'll have filtered out some of the more useless ideas and reached a much higher degree of compatibility and flexibility.

 

It seems like Behringer has decided that open sourcing the software is a better idea and the marketplace will ultimately decide if that is true or not. I would imagine that people will opt for the units that offer the best options for longevity. Or not. Who knows?

 

[Vito Corleone]

Funny, somewhat related story regarding public perception and technology:

 

Yesterday we had a memorial service for my sister-in-law. I said I'd bring a small sound system for background music and wireless mics. I bring my two old beat-to-crap Yamaha MS400 powered speakers and my small Behringer MXB1002 mixer and run my phone playing Pandora into it. The mixer and speakers I've had for 15 years.

 

So many people -- including younger, tech-savvy folks --- kept coming up to me commenting on how compact the system was and how good it sounded. "So the amps are just built right into the speakers??? Wow, that's so cool!" "So the music is just coming from Pandora on your phone? It sounds so big and full and clean!"

 

I'm only thinking how beat up, out-dated and clunky the set-up looked. I guess they were expecting a rack of amps and a big mixing table? And thinking that even further amplified it would still sound like it does coming out of their phone speakers? I dunno.

[agedhorse]

I think disposability will depend in large part on price paid rather than perceived value. If I spent $5k on any product, I would expect a USEABLE lifespan of greater than 5 years. Putting this in perspective, $5k would buy a mighty fine guitar...

[Vito Corleone]

 

I think disposability will depend in large part on price paid rather than perceived value.

 

No doubt. And I think that's the issue here. These mixers are cheap, small-format stuff. We're talking 4-and-8 input mixers here. If Behringer is making small, cheap digital mixers that have a reasonable expectation to be compatible with most tablets for the forseeable future, then I think they've got a pretty good product here that will compete with/replace the small-format analog stuff in the same price range.

 

For a solo/duo act and the guy who is running the small mixer from stage is also using a tablet for his setlists and song charts? These things look like a pretty good option.

 

 

[agedhorse]

Agreed

[Shaster]

 

 

 

I don't think there's any real reason they would expect any greater longevity out of a PA mixer than they get out of their computer systems. Yeah, there might be some old guy working there who remembers how long the old system lasted but I think most younger folks are pretty clued into the ever-changing world of technology and upgrades.

 

Sound equipment is now more like your computer than like your rangetop stove. I don't think most people are going to be disappointed by this.

 

People might be willing to waste their own money, but organizations often demand greater scrutiny and approval.

 

So far, it's been my experience that schools look at a a PA more like a stove than a computer. Until a few years ago, I was PAC chair (Canada's PTA) of my child's elementary school, and PAC vice president of my child's high school. In the high school we had a budget of over $40k a year to spend, and do you know it took me four years to get the 25 year old Yamaha speakers replaced with a pair of used Yorkville EF500P's. The drama department still uses some 40 year old Traynor columns. In fact in 2011, I was shocked to find out they had sent one of the columns in for repair. These things were circa 1970, but they wouldn't dream of replacing them!

 

Maybe one day things will change, but I don't believe we are there yet.

 

That's not to take away from the B mixers, I might get one myself, it's just that I wouldn't use one in an install - not at this point anyway.

 

[Vito Corleone]

 

People might be willing to waste their own money, but organizations often demand greater scrutiny and approval.

 

So far, it's been my experience that schools look at a a PA more like a stove than a computer. Until a few years ago, I was PAC chair (Canada's PTA) of my child's elementary school, and PAC vice president of my child's high school. In the high school we had a budget of over $40k a year to spend, and do you know it took me four years to get the 25 year old Yamaha speakers replaced with a pair of used Yorkville EF500P's. The drama department still uses some 40 year old Traynor columns. In fact in 2011, I was shocked to find out they had sent one of the columns in for repair. These things were circa 1970, but they wouldn't dream of replacing them!

 

Maybe one day things will change, but I don't believe we are there yet.

 

That's not to take away from the B mixers, I might get one myself, it's just that I wouldn't use one in an install - not at this point anyway.

 

 

I don't think we are there yet either. Just that things are moving in that direction. People and organizations don't see buying computers that need to be replaced every few years as a "waste of money" because that's just the nature of the technology. They don't buy typewriters simply because they don't need to be replaced as often as computers. If sound equipment moves into this paradigm, then that will just be how things are.

 

Part of that greater scrutiny also demands state of the art equipment. I wouldn't expect such companies to want decades-old technology just because it might not need to be replaced as often. I would imagine that in a few years, a sound system will just be one component of an "install" system for a large organization. When it makes more sense to be installing a system where the same tablet or laptop also controls their lighting and security and who-knows-what-else? Then that old analog mixing console is going to look like a Olivetti.

 

The kicker will be: what's available in 10 years? If the definition of a sound system is something that runs via a tablet device, then that's what people and organizations will be wanting.

[agedhorse]

I also agree that we are moving in that direction, and that the major definition of pro versus non-pro will be the skill set of the user. In some ways it has always been like this, but maybe even moreso in the future. Pushing buttons is one thing, understanding how audio works "big picture" is quite the different thing.

[Vito Corleone]

Also matters what sort of gear tomorrow's pros will be learning their skill sets upon. If they are learning on digital gear and portable remote consoles, then older analog gear is going to likely seem clunky and inefficient to them.

 

I can certainly imagine sound engineers of the future shaking their head and laughing when told that in the "old days" reverb, EQ, effects processors, crossovers, etc all used be housed in separate 19" metal boxes that were screwed into giant racks that got pushed around on wheels and everything was connected with a complicated menagerie of wires and cables!

[OneEng]

I also agree that we are moving in that direction, and that the major definition of pro versus non-pro will be the skill set of the user. In some ways it has always been like this, but maybe even moreso in the future. Pushing buttons is one thing, understanding how audio works "big picture" is quite the different thing.

Amen brother Andy

 

I also agree that Mackie kind of missed the boat by including the form factor of a commercial device in their architecture.

 

The important design aspect to stay in line with is separating out the mixer, interface protocol, and input/output device as separate parts of the design. Behringer has done this while the other digital console makers have not. This is one of the reasons I have a Behringer mixer. Since I am fully capable of creating my own program on any device I so desire, I will never have to worry about my X32 Rack becoming obsolete because of lack of support of an app or hardware platform.

 

Having said that, I can assure you all that creating a program for my mixer is not high on my "to do" list (and certainly no where on my "honey do" list). As long as ANYONE else is making something that works reasonably well, I won't be compiling code at home But that is really the point. There are already people coding interfaces for the X32 line and the product is only 3 years old. It is very unlikely that anyone with an X32 line of mixers is going to have their device antiquated because of lack of hardware or operating system support for their device.

 

To Andy's point, the GUI and mixer is just a tool (not so unlike a guitar). Having a great mixer does not a great sounding show make! If you have a PRS and a Bogner, it doesn't mean you can play a ripping lead .... just that you can make lots of noise.

 

As a caviat, Behringer's newer firmware and tablet software are not compatible with the iPad 1. This also doesn't mean that anyone who ownes an X32 is out of luck. If they want to continue to use their existing rev of firmware (1.5) and their iPad 1, then everything that the mixer could do with rev 1.5 firmware still works perfectly well. They just can't update their console to the 2.xx branch of code and get all the cool features that were added ..... and keep using their old iPad 1.

 

Considering the insanely inexpensive Android tablets that are out there, I see no reason for anyone having an X32 who originally used an iPad 1 to continue using their iPad 1. Just shell out the $100.00, download MixingStation and enjoy all the features of the most recent 2.xx firmware (including an RTA even on the tablet if you use MixingStation).

[Craig Vecchione]

 

 

 

 

I don't think there's any real reason they would expect any greater longevity out of a PA mixer than they get out of their computer systems. Yeah, there might be some old guy working there who remembers how long the old system lasted but I think most younger folks are pretty clued into the ever-changing world of technology and upgrades.

 

Sound equipment is now more like your computer than like your rangetop stove. I don't think most people are going to be disappointed by this.

 

 

I guess not. They sound pretty stupid.

[Unalaska]

The analog gear can't outlive the memories of those who ran it, maybe it can? The advantage to digital is the built in eq and dynamics along with recalling scenes, and the portability of tablet mixing has come into play more recently. Take away the iPad part and give me a basic analog board with 4ch of dynamics and decent eq's and I'll be happy. FWIW I am buying a tablet based mixer shortly, I don't know which one just yet. (I am selling my gl2400 but only so I can by a soundcraft GB4. Need analog w more auxes)

[Craig Vecchione]

 

 

Well, based on what people are saying here, it looks like Mackie made a big error by making this unit into such a closed system. We're still in the beginning stages of this technology. My Commodore 64 didn't really last too long either. But I would expect that in 10-20 years time we'll have filtered out some of the more useless ideas and reached a much higher degree of compatibility and flexibility.

 

It seems like Behringer has decided that open sourcing the software is a better idea and the marketplace will ultimately decide if that is true or not. I would imagine that people will opt for the units that offer the best options for longevity. Or not. Who knows?

 

 

Open sourcing software is a good move on Behringer's part. And building the Mackie DL for only the iPad...and requiring it in order to function at all...was foolish. In ten years Dl's will be like, "hey look, that mixer that you needed an iPad to use." Followed by, "what's an iPad?"

[agedhorse]

So a couple nights ago I was providing audio for Leo Kottke and we were talking about the "good 'ol days", when it came up that while I was able to set up sound check in about 30 seconds "plenty good to go", he said he has experienced many frustrating experience at sound checks waiting for sound guys to sort things out, page between functions, something that should take no time at all now takes 5-10 minutes. "When a sound guy says wait a minute while I reboot the board" is especially "cringe-worthy". For God's sake, he's only 2 inputs and one wedge mix!!!

 

Amongst some of us crew (yes, we are all old farts with decades of pro level experience) we were talking about this very topic, and how the very benefits of straight ahead (quality) audio gear is becoming lost on the new "kids". The kids will ask why anybody would ever want to mix on such old fashoned, obsolete equipment... Leo then quipped that maybe they would also wonder why anybody would want to play on an old fashoned wood guitar when they could make music on a computer... then it evolved to why would anybody want to act old fashoned and play music live in front of people when they could just download an app and phone in the performance while walking around their apartment in their underwear.

 

Why do I enjoy working with horses? After all, that's far more old fashoned and obsolete right? Except that the outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.

[Craig Vecchione]

Indeed, the trend guido is describing is sad...let's buy shoddy gear with lots of features, and be *happy* that it won't outlast our shoddy, feature-laden "phones". I'm paying $2000 for a 16-channel amateur mixer why????

[Vito Corleone]

Kids these days....

 

Yeah, the newer technology is still in the early phases. All of this stuff is going to be museum pieces some day just like early MacIntosh computers are now. But should I have never bought a computer back then because the ones sure to come a decade or so later would be so much more advanced and stable and boot up faster?

 

And these kids learning on new equipment will someday be the old farts with decades of experience themselves. But hey--we were all laughed at when we were starting out too, most likely.

 

Old technology is fine in many ways. There will always be people who prefer to use it. That's cool. I know of writers who insist on using typewriters. That's all cool. But no newsroom is going to outfit their desks with them. I wouldn't want to be in the typewriter business counting on a resurgence for those who appreciate the benefits of them.

 

And comparing advances in technology with anyone's ability to be artistic with them is kinda silly. Apples and oranges, really. I probably would have replied to Leo that good music is made on both old fashioned wood guitars and on new-fangled computers. But nobody is recording with tape much anymore. Including, I imagine, Mr. Kottke. The guys at Ampex are probably still pissed off about that.

 

But yes, I do think that live performance of music will be greatly altered in the future by advances in technology---just as it always has been. People probably will be performing for the world from their homes via mobile devices. Not sure I'm seeing the guffaws in that idea. Depends what they might be wearing I suppose?

 

There's nothing wrong with enjoying working with horses. They are still a pretty good means of getting from one place to another and have other enjoyable qualities. I wouldn't want to take one out on the freeway, though.

[Vito Corleone]

Indeed, the trend guido is describing is sad...let's buy shoddy gear with lots of features, and be *happy* that it won't outlast our shoddy, feature-laden "phones". I'm paying $2000 for a 16-channel amateur mixer why????

 

I will admit that the small mobile device is my pocket is actually a pretty crappy phone. Those old landline phones do sound much better. And are more reliable. But the mobile device is pretty amazing for its ability to do everything it does, however. And scary to think of what the models 10 years from now will be able to do. And doesn't it seems crazy that the iPhone didn't even exist a mere 8 years ago??

 

Seems to me we're still just in the Blackberry stage with most of this new stuff. I, for one, am excited for the future. And I plan on getting some of this Blackberry-stage audio equipment. Even if it might be obsolete in a few years.

 

Or might still be perfect for my needs. Some people still love their Blackberrys and swear by them.

 

[agedhorse]

Of course, it should be noted that we didn't start out "bsahing technology" right off the bat. I have worked with Kottke pretty regularly since the early middle 1980's, including the couple of years he spent touring with another act I regularly worked with (Michael Hedges), so his statement was more of a "hey it's always simple, easy and sounds good with you, but it seems to me that the guys working with the digital boards don't seem to be as fast or as productive" to his view. So is it because I am older and more experienced, is it because I am just better than the younger guys, is it because their tool is not as productive for them as mine is for me, or what?

 

One of the advantages of being older, and working with older acts, is that the work flows tend to have evolved more similarly so I know where he is going before he gets there and he knows my approach so thogether it's the right set of tools for the specifig job. I could be pretty close to as fast on a digital console I suppose, but I already have a very, very good analog console that does exactly what I need when I need it. Doesn't really leave me wanting for more. I'm also not carrying it and the drive/fx racks around either... that might make some difference perhaps.

 

[Vito Corleone]

So is it because I am older and more experienced, is it because I am just better than the younger guys, is it because their tool is not as productive for them as mine is for me, or what?

 

 

Probably a bit of all of that. The younger guys are learning their craft and the technology is growing with them at the same time. Much in the same way as you probably grew up with technology that left some older guys scratching their heads a bit with back in the day.

 

To once again compare it myself as keyboard player: I know that coming of age in the 80s, I certainly have always felt much more natural using the technologies of that era than did a lot of the older piano-and-organ-only type players. And I'm a bit uncomfortable with a lot of today's PC-based music production. And most of the older guys are better straight-up piano and organ players than I am. But all-in-all, I feel pretty confident I can hold my own using the gear I like to put on an equally-competent performance with either the older or the younger cats.

 

But I wouldn't think that any of the older sound engineers here need to feel threatened by any of this new stuff. Certainly the old stuff will remain viable long enough for them to finish out their careers using it without them having to completely re-learn their craft. And the talented young engineers will still be good regardless of which sort of gear they learn their craft using.

 

It's always tough in any business where technology defines the craft to such a large degree. How far do you push yourself to keep up and at what point do you just let it move on past you and you decide "enough's enough for me"?

 

Tools are just tools. You use them to the degree you need them to reach a desired goal. Of course, at the same time, the capabilities of the tools also help define just exactly what the goal is. Worker productivity keeps increasing not because people work so much harder in most cases, but because the tools they use allow them to do more.