Game Changer

[Anderton]

In theory, yes, but in practice, not always. You have to actually be able to use that A/D converter in order for the question (and answer) to be significant. Connect your favorite preamp to your favorite converter, turn the preamp gain up full, terminate the input with a 150 ohm resistor (it'll probably be putting out about -65 dBu of noise), and record what comes out of the converter both at 16 and 24 bits. How much difference to you measure? How much difference do you hear?

 

The biggest, most obvious difference I heard was going direct with bass. You really couldn't miss it.

 

Remember that dynamic range and signal-to-noise ratio are not the same, Signal-to-noise ratio is measurable. There's a maximum output level and there's a noise level, and you just take the ratio of the two levels. Dynamic range, however, isn't so clear. You can measure the maximum output level but since we can extract information from signal that's somewhat below the noise level, defining the bottom end of dynamic range is more difficult. Usually we do it theoretically, and that's where you get the numbers like 112 or 115 dB of dynamic range for a converter (the component). But when you measure the noise level of the converter (the box) you'll find it somewhere in the -75 to -85 dBFS for a modern 24-bit converter.

 

Well, when doing loopback interface tests through the mic pres, a lot of interfaces are getting below -100dB (A-weighted, though). At least that's what the analyzer shows With a lot of the interfaces I've tested, the dynamic range and signal-to-niose ratio isn't that different.

 

I suspect one difference in our reactions to greater bit depth is how you and I record. I'm usually not dong a live recording and cranking up the gain with low-level mic signals. Almost all miking I do is close-miking, and I record a lot of guitar and bass direct, so there's plenty of signal going in.

[Anderton]

 

The elephant is the room is "build quality". While I don't necessarily have Behringer-phobia, I have had enough hit-and-miss experiences with their products that I'm reluctant to jump right into purchasing one of these things. It will obviously be the heart and soul of any rig.

 

 

My understanding is that it's a MIDAS unit with a Behringer nameplate, so the question is more what kind of build quaity MIDAS has had in the past, and whether the same procedures are being used since the acquisition. Again, the Behringer rep I talked to said that Behringer was adopting MIDAS's procedures, not the other way around...but we'll see what happens when the mixers get out into the field. Until then, I can only speculate.

[MikeRivers]

 

The elephant is the room is "build quality".

 

 

"Build" certainly contributes to reliability but it's not the only source of failure. You have software running that might crash if you pushed a series of buttons that never got pushed by a software tester.

 

What you're really interested in is what's known as "continuity of service." This is the probability that if it's been working for an hour, that it will continue to work for the next hour. There are methods of estimating that based on mean time between failure for each of the individual components or assemblies, but the only real way to tell is through actual running time.

[Rekel]

Once you start thinking of their stuff like a bag of Bic disposable razors, it all gets simple: you just carry a spare. The price per use of Behringer gear is quite low, probably cheaper than any other manufacturer. If you assign a high negative value to failure during a show or recording session, then of course that utility curve gets thrown out the window. Terry D.

 

 

FWIW, Behringer recently extended their (limited) warranty period from 2 years to 3 years in certain countries, including the U.S. That indicates to me that they are getting more serious about QC of their products.

[MrKnobs]

Maybe you're a bigger guy than me, or you have a bigger van, but to me, carrying a spare console isn't quite the same as carrying a spare razor. Carrying a spare Behringer is probably better than carrying a spare Yamaha, but then most people don't carry a spare Yamaha because they trust the one they use. You can't go into a purchase like this with the assumption that it will fail but a backup is cheap.

 

Depends. I would never use a Behringer mixer (or any other Behringer device) in the signal line at a high value show. By in the signal line, I mean something a recorded signal is passing through or mains going to the audience. For instance in my studio I have a Behringer headphone amp as it's feature rich and does the job for a while until it doesn't. By "high value show" I mean a paid recording session or a live show that pays a significant amount of money or is otherwise important. Example: my musical partner Julie has a small PA for playing tiny places that don't have PA. Her PA is a tiny $45 Behringer mixer and two JBL Eons. Her backup plan is an identical Behringer mixer and using just one of the EONS if one fails.

 

That grosses me out a bit but it works perfectly for her. The Behringer sounds "ok," is easy to carry two of, and for $90 gives a complete backup plan for any system failure. It takes only a moment to switch from one 2 - 3 channel mixer setup to the other, or only a moment to turn off the EON that's farting out - if it hasn't already turned itself off.

 

But isn't this nearly always the case? Do you want to be the one everyone's staring at for five minutes while you unplug everything from the console that failed and plug in your backup?

 

I realize the case above is kinda special, but in Austin it's not unusual at all. I'd venture the majority of live shows in Austin fit the description of Julie's solo or duo shows. And I'd wager the majority of musicians here have similar budgets to hers.

 

Now me, I'm an old sound dog like you. The bands I mix are larger and my backup plan is more complicated, but like Julie I seek to have complete redundancy while carrying a minimum of stuff. As you're about to say below, total analog mixer failure is very rare, so I stick with analog. IF the console does die completely, I will as a last resort have the band take a short break and move the monitor mixer to FOH and run both the mains and monitors from it (in a much more rudimentary way of course). But hey, the show must go on and that's unlikely to happen - has happened to me only once to be exact out of all the uncountable shows I've mixed.

 

The other possibilities are easily covered by multiple power amps being repatched, graphic or parametric EQ subbing for a crossover, more than one speaker for each frequency band, mixing monitors from FOH if the monitor mix board dies, running snapped together XLR cables if the snake fails, etc. etc. Redundancy for everything and a plan in mind if it happens. It's not the Space Shuttle but the show will damn well go on if I can possibly make it so.

 

You also need to consider that the console may not be a single point of failure, either, so a problem is more difficult to diagnose. Suppose you're using the Cat5 snake and the stage box end fails? Swap out the console and you still have the problem. Did you bring a backup stage box as well?

 

As much as I like the idea of running a single ethernet cable or one or two XLR cables carrying control info to the "real" mixer on stage, I'm not doing that unless I have a complete backup system. A regular analog snake with 24 channels and 4 returns is very redundant all by itself. I'm sticking with my analog snakes for now.

 

And while it takes the argument in a totally different direction, total failure of an analog console is unusual. About the only thing that can take down the entire console is the power supply, but a digital console usually is binary - either it all works or it all doesn't. You can usually work around a noisy or dead channel but not a dead console.

 

I'd say you're taking the argument right back to the core of this thread. That new Behringer mixer is digital. Sure, it's full of a bunch of cool bells and whistles but nothing so important that it overcomes the advantage of analog, discrete gear in terms of redundancy and low probability of total system failure, at least for me.

 

I agree (as I said above) that analog consoles rarely fail totally. Usually, if the power supply is working, most of the channels and busses are good to go. A quality analog console will fry a resistor and take a shorted channel out without taking the whole rig down. A quality live console will often have a separate power supply both for low noise and the ability to carry a second power supply which is easily swapped if the first one fails.

 

Oh, and there's a digital mixer I use a LOT, it's a Tascam DM-24. I've had it long enough that I've seen it fail in various ways, but never in a binary way. Most often the computer inside loses its mind but the faders still do what faders are supposed to do. Sometimes one of the motorized faders will fight you, which is a real problem if you can't turn off the fader motors because the control processor has lost its mind. What you can do though is let the fader have its way but control the level from the pad, which is analog and always works. Of course if the power supply dies, it's game over just like an analog console. But I wouldn't say a digital mixer either works or doesn't, they have their quirks too.

 

So what we've come back around to, I'd say, is that reliability is key to whether this nice sparkly Behringer toy is going to survive in the world of live sound, or even for studio use since it's a problem even in the low budget world to assemble musicians once let alone tell them to come back hours later after the gear is fixed.

 

Terry D.

 

P.S. By the way, the analog mixer I carry for large shows has a multipin connector both for the snake and the FOH rack. Two snaps and it's done. That might be a pretty quick swap to a backup mixer - if I carried one.

[Rekel]

OK Terry, it's clear you obviously have very little faith in Behringer products

[MrKnobs]

OK Terry, it's clear you obviously have very little faith in Behringer products

 

Well, just as a second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience, I guess I'll give Behringer a try again at some point.

 

Terry D.

[Beck]

I agree with this. Maybe this is different from your reasoning, but the limiting factor on almost every recording that I have made for money has been the talent. You can go a long way not screwing up a good performance, but a technically pristine recording of mediocrity still sucks. This fact of life has led me to believe that there aren't a lot of gains to be made in tech... the elements that require optimization are human.

I guess it's my turn to answer this one this time. Ms. Flier and I have been taking turns on this one for a few years. I believe it's my turn... well if not, she owes me one.

This dodge from the topic of sound and product quality is a non-argument, but sooner or later it always comes up in these threads.

Good talent... something worth recording is understood in these debates. It's a given. Yours is a classic error in debate. It is similar to the equally annoying and flawed logic that if it's all going to end up in a lossy compressed format anyway what's the point of going to the trouble of tracking to high rez digital or analog.

Since a picture paints a thousand words (or by my calculations its actually 1066 words) I usually put this cute little Fisher Price kiddy tape recorder as the visual to drive home the error of the logic. I'm asking (but silently because your own mind should beg the question without me actually saying it out load)

[MikeRivers]

Depends. I would never use a Behringer mixer (or any other Behringer device) in the signal line at a high value show .

 

Is the difference between a high and a low value show that in a coffee house with a small audience, the audience or the management isn't going to get too upset if there's a short interruption? And that usually it's the artist's own gear that's failed rather than a hired system or the venue's system? Money paid for a ticket usually goes along with the size of the venue and the fame of the band, but you don't want your system to fail when the whole city is out there waiting for the fireworks show. Oh, wait a minute. They already did that.

 

Example: my musical partner Julie has a small PA for playing tiny places that don't have PA. Her PA is a tiny $45 Behringer mixer and two JBL Eons. Her backup plan is an identical Behringer mixer and using just one of the EONS if one fails. It takes only a moment to switch from one 2 - 3 channel mixer setup to the other, or only a moment to turn off the EON that's farting out - if it hasn't already turned itself off. I realize the case above is kinda special, but in Austin it's not unusual at all. I'd venture the majority of live shows in Austin fit the description of Julie's solo or duo shows. And I'd wager the majority of musicians here have similar budgets to hers.

 

But we're talking about an X32 here, and more likely than not, in the hands of someone who doesn't understand what he has. As the gear gets less expensive, you'll have more clueless people buying and operating it. (obligatory comment about DAWs goes here)

 

As much as I like the idea of running a single ethernet cable or one or two XLR cables carrying control info to the "real" mixer on stage, I'm not doing that unless I have a complete backup system.

 

I expect that you'll come around eventually, if you keep this business up long enough. Typically these Ethernet and fiber optic snake systems are redundant but that's probably going to change when you're selling to people who can only afford a $2500 mixer.

 

So what we've come back around to, I'd say, is that reliability is key to whether this nice sparkly Behringer toy is going to survive in the world of live sound, or even for studio use since it's a problem even in the low budget world to assemble musicians once let alone tell them to come back hours later after the gear is fixed.

 

Well, we'll seem in a few years. By then, they can sell a lot of mixers. Does anyone remember and still use the last digital console Behringer built? And most of the TASCAM digital mixers were only around for a couple of years. I haven't heard anyone mention the DM-24 in years, and Soundcraft had a pretty well thought out digital studio console, and Sony, too, but they were just little flashes in the pan. In order for Behringer to build anything, they have to sell as many in the first month as some of those legacy digital consoles sold in their whole (short) life.

[Beck]

I can only agree with Mike that we can get as good as it needs to be now

[MikeRivers]

I can only agree with Mike that we can get as good as it needs to be now

[MrKnobs]

Is the difference between a high and a low value show that in a coffee house with a small audience, the audience or the management isn't going to get too upset if there's a short interruption?

 

Yes.

 

But we're talking about an X32 here, and more likely than not, in the hands of someone who doesn't understand what he has. As the gear gets less expensive, you'll have more clueless people buying and operating it.

 

Yes, and then we'll most likely learn that "Behringer" on the faceplate still means what it always has. From talking to musicians playing in small venues, I've learned three things about the little Behringer mixers: (1) they're popular with poor musicians because they're cheap, (2) the musicians understand they can and will fail at any moment, and (3) they like them in part because they have very few knobs and are therefore "less complicated to use."

 

I know a lot of musicians who feel that way about fewer knobs on their guitar amps too.

 

I expect that you'll come around eventually, if you keep this business up long enough. Typically these Ethernet and fiber optic snake systems are redundant but that's probably going to change when you're selling to people who can only afford a $2500 mixer.

 

I expect that I'll have to come around when all that's out there is digital.

 

I love digital boards, but only when problems aren't show stoppers and I have plenty of time to figure things out.

 

Are systems like the Roland digital mixer for live use (which has the actual mixing electronics in a box on the stage) redundant? I don't think so.

 

Well, we'll seem in a few years. By then, they can sell a lot of mixers. Does anyone remember and still use the last digital console Behringer built? And most of the TASCAM digital mixers were only around for a couple of years. I haven't heard anyone mention the DM-24 in years, and Soundcraft had a pretty well thought out digital studio console, and Sony, too, but they were just little flashes in the pan. In order for Behringer to build anything, they have to sell as many in the first month as some of those legacy digital consoles sold in their whole (short) life.

 

The DM-24 is an old digital board (mine is still working more or less perfectly, btw), but Tascam didn't stop making digital consoles. Their current one is the DM-3200 or DM-4800 I believe, depending on how many channels you want. I had a (very) small part in helping them design it.

 

Terry D.

[MikeRivers]

 

The DM-24 is an old digital board (mine is still working more or less perfectly, btw), but Tascam didn't stop making digital consoles. Their current one is the DM-3200 or DM-4800 I believe, depending on how many channels you want. I had a (very) small part in helping them design it.

 

 

The DM-3200 and DM-4800 are different inside, from what I understand. The 4800 isn't just a larger version. And indeed, they have hung in for quite a few years now, but they're small sellers. The DM-24 came out in 2001, and I think the DM-3200 was the next model. I can't remember when that came out, but the DM-4800 has been around since 2006. I suspect that TASCAM isn't really interested in continuing this line and it will probably slip out under the door when the run out of parts, or orders. And TASCAM consoles have never really found a solid home in live sound. They've always been a studio company.

[Beck]

Back in the good ol' days, we never really looked at "quality." Everything was built in small lots, usually in small factories or the maker's own workshop. The gear was expensive enough so that you could do that, and the professionals who used it just expected it - and for the most part got it. Once recording got to be something that anyone with a computer could do for just a few hundred bucks, the quest for more features for less money got into gear. Initially the money was for software and maybe a microphone and a mixer - dedicated audio interfaces were few and far between and most recording was done with the computer's built-in sound card. The Sound Blaster 16 was a revelation, and cost $150 20 years ago

Yep, I mostly agree with that part.

An Ampex AG-440 can keep working for 50 years. My Mackie 1200F will become a doorstop when I stop using Windows XP.

Don't stop using XP. XP is another thing they'll have to pry from my cold dead fingers.

... at some time you'll have to replace your computer and it's likely that there won't be a place to plug in the host card. I'm still running a Mackie HDR24/96 of around the same vintage. But some time it will need a part that can't be replaced by new stock.

I

[MikeRivers]

 

Don't stop using XP. XP is another thing they'll have to pry from my cold dead fingers.

 

 

That was my plan, but Pro Tools 10 won't run on XP. I don't really plan on using it as a working tool, but I want to have it available for testing hardware since my screaming fans want to know "how does it work with Pro Tools?" I suppose I could put Win7 on a clunker and just plug in the new stuff that presumably has a working Win7 driver (that's what they really want to know).

 

 

The idea that someday people won

[jbreher]

so the question is more what kind of build quaity MIDAS has had in the past, and whether the same procedures are being used since the acquisition. Again, the Behringer rep I talked to said that Behringer was adopting MIDAS's procedures, not the other way around...but we'll see what happens when the mixers get out into the field. Until then, I can only speculate.

 

 

Again, something that I would challenge. What could the Music Group bring to Midas' profitability? It seems to me that a more 'contemporary' build process (as well as consolidated marketing) may be the only benefits. Accordingly, it seems to me that these would likely be built in the Behringer way, rather than the Midas way. Again, I'm just some random schmoe musician, but that's how I see it.

[jbreher]

I feel I should also comment upon the claim that Firewire has a detrimental effect upon audio quality. I'm calling foul on this assertion.

Firewire is merely a transport for digital audio data. As such, it has exactly _zero_ effect upon the audio quality. What goes in one end of the cable comes out the other end without modification, save for latency and jitter - which are both negated by local clocking. The latency may cause an issue in live environments, but meaningless in terms of audio quality. And all digital transports have inherent latency.

A/D and D/A may have an effect upon audio quality. As can jitter. But this has absolutely zero to do with the choice of Firewire as a digital audio transport.

[MikeRivers]

 

I feel I should also comment upon the claim that Firewire has a detrimental effect upon audio quality. I'm calling foul on this assertion. Firewire is merely a transport for digital audio data. As such, it has exactly _zero_ effect upon the audio quality. What goes in one end of the cable comes out the other end without modification, save for latency and jitter - which are both negated by local clocking.

 

 

This is true for a data stream, but there's a special dedicated chip that stuffs 8 or 24 audio streams into Firewire packets and that's where things are not perfect. Pretty darn good, I'll grant you. The average user, even "professionals," for the most part don't have a problem. But at least one smart guy and builder of some excellent audio interfaces has measurements to demonstrate that there is indeed inter-channel jitter. Of course it's not great enough to make the drummer sound like he's drunk, but it's enough to measure comb filtering between two channels that start out being identical and synchronous. I think Dan Lavry may have a paper about it on his web site.

 

But it's obviously nothing you need to worry about.

[Temple of Light]

:facepalm:Game changed...I got a first look at one of these @ my local GC today, and must say is impressive for what it looks like it can do in a live sound environment. Typical GC though didn't even have program music or anything else plugged into it or out of it for that matter...just set up for oogling for now. Some day soon I hope they get something plugged into it so people can hear how it sounds...but for me and my recording applications, this thing comes up well short of it's overhyped and advertised reputation.
As I suspected, significant compromises in automation, I/O and recording facilities have been made here, and the buzz does not seem to bode well for future upgrades and improvements...could of been a monster product appealing to 100's of 1000's of studio's, but they instead decided to focus on the live band, club and worship environments, excluding the dance DJ and studio markets by design...
better luck next time Behringer,
I hope you make enough off it to pay off it's cost of R&D and manufacture.